• Exclusions: exclusions for parties in possession and matters that would have been disclosed by proper survey, do not negate affirmative coverage for claims against an easement described in Schedule A of the Policy – Desjardins v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., Case No. 12-cv-272 (D.N.H. June 14, 2013) (order granting summary judgment)
  • Agent Professional Liability Policy: where principal of title agency and agency are both insureds under professional liability policy and principal commits a crime giving rise to a claim, professional liability insurer is not required to defend and there is no coverage based on criminal acts exclusion – Max Specialty Ins. Co. v. A Clear Title and Escrow Exchange, LLC, Case No. 8:12-cv-727 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2013) (order granting summary judgment)
  • Class Action: where plaintiff’s alleged participation in overcharges on title insurance is limited to their execution of HUD settlement statements, these circumstances, alone, without out more on a motion to dismiss, preclude a finding that they acted in pari delicto – Tracey v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., Case No. 12-1329 (D.Md. June 12, 2013) (order denying motion to dismiss)
  • Exclusions: insured’s observation of power lines on the property does not amount to actual knowledge of a recorded electrical easement missed by title search and, thus, claim based on recorded easement is not excluded under 3(a) – C 1031 Properties, Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., Case No. 30849 (Wash. App. May 23, 2013) (reversing and remanding trial court’s summary judgment)
  • Coverage: where insured believes she is purchasing a condominium unit and a garage but in fact never takes title to the garage and the policy does not describe the garage in Schedule A, then insurer is not liable to insured because there is no defect in the insured title and consequently no breach of the policy – Hoy v. Niemela, Case No. A12-1806 (Minn. App. June 17, 2013) (affirming in part, reversing in part, dismiss of action and denial of summary judgment and remanding)
  • Class Action: plaintiff failed to meet the predominance requirement in reissue rate class action – Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Mims, Case No. 05-12-00534 (Tex. App. June 19, 2013) (reversing order granting class certification)