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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT