ILNews

COA reverses judgment in title insurance issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to extend to an insurance agent the duty of an insurer as declared by the state’s highest court. In doing so, the judges reversed the denial of a title insurance company’s motion for summary judgment.

In Meridian Title Corporation v. Gainer Group, LLC, No. 46A03-1006-PL-312, Gainer Group LLC sued Meridian Title Corporation, alleging Meridian failed to properly handle Gainer Group’s claim in a lawsuit involving a piece of property. The Ruth N. Cathey Trust sold some property to the Gainer Group and the trust engaged Meridian to procure title insurance for the property. After the sale, the trust claimed it mistakenly sold more land to Gainer Group than it had intended.

Meridian tried to facilitate a resolution, but the trust ended up suing Gainer Group to recover the piece of property it didn’t want to sell. That’s when Gainer Group filed its lawsuit against Meridian, seeking to recover litigation expenses and attorney fees it incurred prior to its insurer accepting the claim.

There’s no evidence of an intimate, long-term relationship between Meridian and Gainer Group that would require Meridian to perform a duty that extends beyond its general duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and good-faith diligence in obtaining the insurance policy, wrote Senior Judge John Sharpnack. But the facts of the case do constitute a special circumstance that triggers an extended duty to advise on the part of Meridian.

Meridian tried to facilitate a settlement between the trust and Gainer Group at its offices. At this meeting, Meridian’s president and CEO pointed to a provision in the title policy and said that Gainer Group didn’t have a claim because it had closed without a survey. Meridian also had a financial interest in no claim being made under Gainer Group’s policy of title insurance, the judge continued.

Meridian had this extended duty to advise Gainer Group regarding coverage, and it fulfilled that duty, the Court of Appeals concluded.

Gainer Group cited Erie Ins. Co. v. Hickman by Smith, 622 N.E.2d 515 (Ind. 1993), to support its argument that Meridian owed it a duty of good faith and fair dealing beyond its general duty of reasonable care, skill, and good-faith diligence. But that case dealt with the duty of an insurer to an insured. In the instant case, Meridian is an agent.

“Our Supreme Court has yet to extend this duty to an agent; rather, an insurance agent’s duty does not extend beyond the general duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and good faith diligence in obtaining a policy of insurance unless the evidence, through certain factors as set forth above, establishes a special relationship,” wrote Senior Judge Sharpnack. “Therefore, we decline Gainer Group’s invitation to extend the application of the duty of an insurer as set out by the Supreme Court in Erie.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT