CARL D. PETERSON AND TWYLA J. PETERSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
TITLE & TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Major General and Mrs. Peterson appealed a summary judgment dismissing their suit against Title & Trust Company for damages under a title insurance policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Title & Trust neither breached the insurance contract nor owed any additional duty beyond insuring against restrictive covenants that were included in the policy.
Title & Trust breached neither the title insurance contract nor any duty owed to the Petersons. By issuing a policy that did not exclude the restrictive covenants, Title & Trust gave its opinion and insured against their applicability, and no further duty of assurance accrued once the policy was issued.
[1] A title insurer does not breach its contract or owe a duty of further assurance when it issues a policy that does not exclude certain restrictive covenants, thereby insur…
[2] A title insurer fulfills its duty by corresponding and communicating with the insured's agents to provide assurance regarding the insurer's position on the applicability…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“By issuing the policy, Title & Trust had given its opinion and insured against any potential applicability of those restrictive covenants to the Petersons' property. No further duty of assurance accrued as to Title & Trust.”
Establishes that the title insurance policy itself satisfied Title & Trust's obligations and created no additional duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTitle & Trust issued a title insurance policy to the Petersons that did not exclude certain restrictive covenants, thereby insuring against their appl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Title Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellants, Major General and Mrs. Peterson, appeal a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee, Title & Trust, in their suit for damages pursuant to a title insurance policy issued by the title company. Although a myriad of facts encumber this case, we are in agreement with the trial court’s conclusion that no material facts creating any genuine issues have been raised which would defeat summary judgment, and we affirm.
The basis for the Petersons’ case is that Title & Trust, as the title insurer, is liable to them for damages suffered because of a delay in construction due to confusion, which was created by third parties, over a question of the potential applicability of certain restrictive covenants to the Peter-sons’ property. The trial court found, and we agree, that no genuine issue exists as to the applicability of the covenants. The Pe-tersons assert that Title & Trust is liable because of its failure to act promptly to eradicate the confusion.
The facts show that Title & Trust breached neither the title insurance contract guarantee nor any duty owed to appellants in its handling of the matter. The title insurance policy issued to the Petersons by the title company did not exclude the restrictive covenants in question. Therefore, by issuing the policy, Title & Trust had given its opinion and insured against any potential applicability of those restrictive covenants to the Petersons’ property. No further duty of assurance accrued as to Title & Trust. Although, admittedly, Title & Trust did delay in responding to the Petersons’ inquiries from Oslo, Norway, where General Peterson, accompanied by his wife, was on military assignment, concerning applicability of the restrictive covenants, undisputed evidence in the record shows that Title & Trust did correspond and verbally communicate with the Petersons’ several local agents in an effort to pacify them by providing further assurance of the title company’s position that the restrictive covenants did not apply.
There being no basis in the record to hold Title & Trust liable, the order of summary final judgment was correct and is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.