The Title Reporter — Fall 2022

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Title Reporter: A Legal Update for the Title Insurance Industry

• A federal district court in New York has rejected a lawsuit filed by insureds under a title insurance policy demanding indemnification for the ostensible diminution in their insured property’s value stemming from an unexpected landmark designation.
• A New York trial court has refused to dismiss a title insurance company’s lawsuit seeking common law indemnification, rejecting all of the grounds asserted by the defendants in their motions seeking dismissal.
• An appellate court in New York has affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a title insurer in an action brought by the insured seeking damages for breach of contract and seeking a judgment declaring that losses the insured allegedly incurred were covered by the policy.
• A Florida court, relying on a title insurance policy’s Standard Exclusion 3(a), has decided that a title insurer was not obligated to defend its insured against claims that the insured failed to meet an obligation to which it was contractually bound.
• A federal district court in Nevada has stayed a title insurance coverage action pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada that is expected to interpret the standard form language in the 1992 American Land Title Association loan policy of title insurance and the California Land Title Association 100/ALTA 9 endorsement.
• A New Mexico appellate court has upheld a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a title insurer on a plaintiff’s breach of contract claim where the trial court concluded that coverage under the title insurance policy, which had been issued to a separate entity, ended before the plaintiff made his title insurance claim.
• An appellate court in Florida has affirmed a trial court’s decision finding a purchase option provision in a condominium declaration to be unenforceable.
• A Wisconsin appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a title insurer in a case in which insureds sought coverage for a dispute over an easement.

Lawrence S. Han, Michael J. Heller and Matthew V. Spero