• Successor Insured: whether successor lender acquired deed of trust with knowledge of state court quiet title action is a question fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss Howard Investments, LLC v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., Case No. 4:12-CV-300 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2012) (order denying motion to dismiss)
  • Exclusions: where policy excludes restrictive covenants, such a restriction in a deed in the chain of title is expressly excluded and insurer is not obligated to call that restriction to insured lender’s attention Metro Bank v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., Case No. CV-10-RRA-03353-M (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2012) (opinion granting summary judgment)
  • Negligence: a title search conducted in connection with a commitment is limited to that purpose under Alabama statute and may not serve as basis for claim of negligence against insurer Metro Bank v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., Case No. CV-10-RRA-03353-M (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2012) (opinion granting summary judgment)
  • Arbitration: requirement of class arbitration may not be presumed from a provision in title insurance policy requiring arbitration between individual insured and insurer and once arbitration is instituted it is arbitrator’s duty to determine whether parties agreed on class arbitration subject to court’s reviewChassen v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-00291 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2012) (order granting motion for reconsideration)
  • Joinder: adverse claimant to title in underlying state court action is not a required party to insured’s action against insurer because court in coverage action may accord complete relief among the existing parties without the presence of the adverse claimantRegions Bank v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., Case No. 11-23257 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2012)
  • Title Agents: agent’s alleged misrepresentations on HUD-1 settlement statement that purchaser/borrower paid deposit and cash to close connection with mortgage rescue scheme was insufficient to withstand motion for summary judgment where plaintiffs participated in scheme without reading the closing documents and would have signed anything to stay in their home Louers v. Lacy, Case No. 10-2292 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 2012)