• Parties in Possession Exclusion: insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify insured for claims based on possession and not recorded in the public records – Fischer v. First American Title Ins. Co., Case no. WD74633 (Mo. Sept. 18, 2012) (affirming judgment notwithstanding verdict)
  • Duty to Defend: court’s declaratory judgment confirming that condominium purchasers owned the common areas did not obviate plaintiff’s claims under the policies as had the insurer defended against the cloud on title the purchasers might have been able to sell their units before the real estate market crashed – Donovan v. Flamingo Palms Villas, LLC, Case No. 2:08-cv-01675 (D. Nev. Sept. 13, 2012) (denying motion to for clarification and reconsideration)
  • Date of Loss: where policy does not specify date for measuring loss, it is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured, and the date for measuring loss should be the date of purchase of the policy – Whitlock v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Case No. 27169 (S.C. Sept. 12, 2012) (answering certified question) (J. Pleicones dissenting)
  • Conflicts: law firm’s representation of both plaintiff and defendant’s parent corporation does not mean (i) that law firm has an attorney client relationship with the wholly owned subsidiary defendant, (ii) that legal work for parent puts it in an adversarial position to defendant, or (iii) that law firm will be materially limited in its representation of plaintiff, and disqualification is not necessary or appropriate – FDIC v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., Case No. 1:08VC2390 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 7, 2012) (denying motion to disqualify counsel)