DIRT Development for Wednesday, August 25, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
TITLE INSURANCE; INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND: Massachusetts federal court rules that title insurer may not avoid the duty to defend by tendering to insured the value of the portion of insured’s property that has been put into dispute, where this amount falls short of the total amount of the policy.
First American Title Insurance Co. v. Grafton Partners, LLC., 2009 Westlaw 79263 (3/20/09)
Grafton had a title policy insuring his property for a total amount of $16,000,000. A dispute arose with a neighbor concerning the neighbor’s alleged adverse possession of a portion of Grafton’s land, and Grafton tendered defense of the suit to the Insurer. At first, the insurer agreed to the defense.
Two years later, with the lawsuits still stewing (one for trespass and a counterclaim for adverse possession) Insurer obtained an appraisal of the property in dispute and the appraisal revealed a value of $26,300. Insurer tendered this amount to Grafton, alleging that this satisfied its obligation to defend. Grafton returned the check, indicated that the loss in value to the total property he owned if the adverse possession succeeded would exceed $5,000,000, and took the position that the Insurer could avoid the duty to defend only by tendering the total amount of the policy.
Grafton engaged in a number of other lawsuits relating to these matters, but none involved an insurable claim.
The critical language concerning whether tender of the value of the disputed property satisfied the Insurer’s duty was contained in Section 6 of the policy:
“In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options:
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance.
To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations to the insured under this policy, other than to make the payment required, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation.
The court tipped its hand when it discussed the dispute:
“The disagreement presented by this motion is over the meaning of "the amount of insurance under this policy" in Section 6(a). [Insurer] assumes, without meaningful discussion, that "the amount of insurance" is equivalent to the amount of "loss" that Grafton would suffer from the adverse claim-which the [Insurer] then asserts is determined by the appraised value it obtained for the disputed portion of the Property. Grafton's position is that "the amount of insurance" signifies the "policy limits"-the insurer's "total liability under the policy prior to the resolution of the underlying claim."” (Emphasis added)
The court concluded that the language of the policy was unambiguous and permitted Insurer to avoid its defense obligation only by tendering the total face amount of the policy.
Comment: In fact, the Editor had always read the language in question consistently with the view of the court, and believes that title officers for the Insurer who had lectured his class had taken that position. So the position taken by this major title insurer in this case is newsworthy, even though it got creamed by the federal judge. Title insurance expert Joyce Palomar transferred this case to the editor and affirms that it correctly states the law in her view as well.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor or
individual contributors and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.
To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.
All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report. This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, AMCA members and members of the NAR. Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org Aba Members Also Can Access Prior and Current Editions of this Report on the Aba Rpte Section Website.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
*************************************