• Exception: survey exception sufficient to preclude coverage for a trail encumbering the property, because survey contained notation about a trail traversing insured property and, even though exception could have been more specific, it was not ambiguous – A. Gugliotta Development Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. of N.Y., No. 2012-10841 (N.Y.  Dec. 4, 2013) (reversing denial of summary judgment)
  • Tort: title insurers do not provide binding representations as to the chain of title and have no duty to present an abstract on which others should be entitled to rely, and, as a result, claims against title insurers generally lie in contract – Johnsen & Allphin Props. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 2:12-cv-740 (D. Utah Dec. 2, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss)
  • Exclusion 3(a): at motion to dismiss stage and based on allegations of complaint, subsequent purchaser of loan cannot be said to have had “actual knowledge” of prior mortgage liens against property so as to trigger exclusion for coverage for those prior mortgage liens even though its predecessor lender had created the liens – Johnsen & Allphin Props. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 2:12-cv-740 (D. Utah Dec. 2, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss)
  • Policy Interpretation: where legal description in policy ambiguous, a court may consider insured’s objectively reasonable expectations as to coverage and does not err in considering whether a reasonable person in insured’s subjective position and with insured’s subjective knowledge would have reasonably expected coverage – Lee v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. A134169 (Cal. App. Nov. 27, 2013) (affirming judgment)