Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal was made regarding a summary final judgment that denied coverage under a title insurance policy. The complaint included two counts for breach of contract and one count for negligent misrepresentation. The judgment affirmatively denied the tort claim for negligent misrepresentation, referencing precedents such as AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Tel. Co. and First American Title Ins. Co. However, the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claims was based on the assertion that the title insurance contract explicitly excluded the matters raised by the plaintiff. The appellate court found that there were genuine material issues of fact, particularly regarding the ownership of lot E, which warranted a reversal of the summary judgment. The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judges Hersey, Gunther, and Stone concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Tort Claims in Insurance Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judgment affirmed the denial of the negligent misrepresentation claim, aligning with legal precedents that limit such tort claims under similar circumstances.
Reasoning: The judgment affirmatively denied the tort claim for negligent misrepresentation, referencing precedents such as AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Tel. Co. and First American Title Ins. Co.
Exclusion Clauses in Title Insurance Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claims was based on the contract's explicit exclusion of matters raised by the plaintiff.
Reasoning: The trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract claims was based on the assertion that the title insurance contract explicitly excluded the matters raised by the plaintiff.
Summary Judgment in Insurance Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine material issues of fact that were not suitable for summary judgment resolution.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that there were genuine material issues of fact, particularly regarding the ownership of lot E, which warranted a reversal of the summary judgment.