PERSONAL FINANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 judgment for a title insurance company, finding that the insured lender had sustained a covered loss due to a forged mortgage. The court directed the lower court to enter judgment for the lender.
Yes, the lender sustained a covered loss because it lent and lost funds on a forged mortgage. The defenses raised by the title insurance company were not valid.
[1] A loss sustained by lending funds on a forged mortgage constitutes a covered loss under a loan policy of title insurance.
[2] An "owner of the indebtedness" is an insured under a title insurance policy, even if the collateral securing the indebtedness has been assigned to a financier.
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“that the plaintiff sustained a covered loss by having unknowingly lent and lost funds on a forged mortgage”
Establishes the core finding of a covered loss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a lender, unknowingly lent funds on a forged mortgage and sustained a loss. The lender had a "loan policy of title insurance." The lowe…
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 Insured Status cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After a bench trial, the lower court entered judgment for the defendant earner in an action on a “loan policy of title insurance.” We reverse with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff instead.
In our opinion, the evidence established without contradiction (a) that the plaintiff sustained a covered loss by having unknowingly lent and lost funds on a forged mortgage, see Lloyd v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 576 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (b) that as the “owner of the indebtedness,” the plaintiff was an insured as defined by the policy, notwithstanding that the forged mortgage was assigned as collateral to its own financier, see § 697.02, Fla.Stat. (1995), and (c) that there was no basis to sustain either of the defenses (i) that the plaintiff had “assumed or agreed to” the defect insured against, see First American Title Ins. Co. v. Kessler, 452 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Annot., Title Insurance: Exclusion of Liability for Defects, Liens, or Encumbrances Created, Suffered, Assumed, or Agreed to by the Insured, 87 A.L.R.3d 515 (1978); see also Mitchel v. Cigna Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 625 So. 2d 862, 864-65 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); cf. Shada v. Title & Trust Co., 457 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 464 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1985); Holin-da v. Title & Trust Co., 438 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984); Endruschat v. American Title Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), or (ii) because it did not prejudice the carrier, that the allegedly late notice of the claim barred recovery. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1976); Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1969); Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. .v. Rogers, 552 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for the appellant in the amount of the policy, $87,500, and appropriate interest and attorney’s fees.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 222 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1969)
- Ramos v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co. & Lawrence J. Williams, 336 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1976)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Norwood M. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Mitchel v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 625 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Holinda v. Title & Tr. Co. OF Fla., 438 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Endruschat v. Am. Title Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Lloyd v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 576 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Shada v. Title & Tr. Co. OF Fla., 457 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Concepcion v. Maximino Tojeiro and Norma Tojeiro, 457 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lindsey v. State, 452 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)