CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CV REIT, INC., F/K/A CENVILL INVESTORS, INC., 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.
The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that a title insurance company did not have a duty to defend its insured against a lawsuit. The court determined that the underlying complaint's allegations did not trigger coverage under the title insurance policy.
No, a title insurance company does not have a duty to defend its insured if the allegations in the underlying complaint do not bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy. The duty to defend arises solely from the allegations within the complaint itself.
[1] A title insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the underlying complaint, not by the insured's conclusions or theories of liability.
[2] A complaint seeking money damages for breach of contract and alleging the insured was a co-developer who misapplied funds does not trigger a title insurer's duty to defen…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“whether or not a duty to defend exists arises from the allegations of the complaint itself, see Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jones, 397 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), not on some conclusions drawn by the insured based upon a theory of liability which has not been pled.”
This quote establishes the principle that the duty to defend is strictly based on the allegations in the complaint, not on the insured's interpretation or unpled theories.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHomeowners and a homeowner's association sued a mortgage holder (CV REIT, Inc.) for breach of contract related to a real estate development. CV REIT, …
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 Equitable Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
In this case the trial court granted partial summary judgment on a third party declaratory judgment complaint finding a duty on the part of Chicago Title Insurance Company to defend an action filed by homeowners and a homeowner’s association against its insured, a mortgage holder and appellee herein. We reverse based on Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Fourth Commerce Properties Corp., 487 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1986) and Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1977).
The underlying lawsuit constituted a collection of claims which requested money damages for breach of various agreements surrounding the real estate development of which appellee was a mortgage holder. None of the claims, including a request for declaratory decree, challenged the status of the mortgage insured by appellant. In fact the theory of the homeowners was that the appellee herein was a co-developer of the project and that it received certain monies from the homeowners that it did not properly apply to the benefit of the homeowners and the homeowner’s association. In its declaratory judgment action against appellant seeking a defense under the title policy issued by appellant, appellee makes statements that “it is evident” that the club and homeowners association are asserting an equitable lien superior to the lien of appellee insured by appellant. We do not find it “evident” at all that such relief has been requested.
Furthermore, whether or not a duty to defend exists arises from the allegations of the complaint itself, see Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jones, 397 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), not on some conclusions drawn by the insured based upon a theory of liability which has not been pled. Cf. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Waco Scaffold & Shorring Co., 370 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Since the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy, it was error to enter partial summary judgment. Pioneer National.
ANSTEAD and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CV Reit, Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 620 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. CV Reit, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). DELL, C.J., and ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (America) Corp., 52 F.3d 1575 (11th Cir. 1995)…iquors, 358 So. 2d at 536 (holding that allegations of intentional acts causing injury resulted in the complaint falling outside the coverage of an insurance policy insuring only against accidental injury); Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. CV Reit, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1991) (holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because “the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy”).…
Authorities Cited
- The Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977)
- Pioneer Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Fourth Commerce Props. Corp., 487 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1986)
- AETNA Ins. Co. & Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Waco Scaffold & Shoring Co., Inc., 370 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jones, 397 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)