ILNews

Title insurer had duty to defend

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ticor Title Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend Home Federal Savings Bank on a counterclaim brought by a general contractor on the failed ethanol plant in Cloverdale.

Altra Indiana LLC got a $95.5 million loan from Home Federal Savings Bank to construct the ethanol plant. Home Federal obtained a mortgage on the property and purchased title insurance from Ticor. The policy included a mechanic’s lien endorsement, which obligated Ticor to defend Home Federal in litigation in which a third party asserts a claim …alleging a ... lien …”

In September 2008, F.A. Wilhelm Construct Co. filed a mechanic’s lien on the property after Altra fired the contractor. Wilhelm claimed it was owed $6 million for work on the project. An October 2008 title search by Ticor revealed the lien. Ticor declined to defend Home Federal on its claim that its attempt to foreclose on the plant property took priority over the lien.

Home Federal and Wilhelm eventually settled for $1.8 million, with no contribution from Ticor. Home Federal then sued Ticor alleging the company acted in bad faith and breached its duties to defend against Wilhelm’s counterclaim that its mechanic’s lien had priority or was equal to the mortgage, and failed in not indemnifying the bank for the settlement and attorney fees.

U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled in favor of Ticor, relying on the policy exclusion for any “Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters … created, suffered, assumed or agreed to or by the Insured claimant.”

Ticor did have a duty to defend under the policy, Judge John Tinder wrote in Home Federal Savings Bank v. Ticor Title Insurance Co., 11-3446. The exclusion relied on the by the District Court to grant summary judgment for Ticor does not apply, the judges ruled, rejecting Ticor’s numerous claims. Ticor argued that Home Federal “created, suffered assumed or agreed to the Wilhelm Lien” because the bank “made the conscious decision not to distribute the remaining loan funds and chose not to pay Wilhelm. It also argued the bank breached a duty to Ticor to distribute the entirety of the loan proceedings and that the “created or suffered” exclusion applies because the bank sought to obtain an inequitable windfall.

The judges ordered summary judgment be entered for Home Federal and for further proceedings on the issue of damages to be awarded to the bank.

 

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