CLYDE BURNETTE AND BERTHA BURNETTE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
TITLE & TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A CORPORATION, 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.
Clyde and Bertha Burnette appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint against Title & Trust Company for recovery under a title insurance policy issued in 1951. The court held that the policy clearly limited coverage to cases where the insured faced actual dispossession or eviction following a final court determination, and since the Burnettes prevailed in their quiet title action, they could not demonstrate the requisite risk of dispossession to recover under the policy.
The policy does not cover the costs incurred in the quiet title action because it insures only against actual dispossession or eviction following a final court determination, not against title defects generally. Since the Burnettes prevailed in their suit and faced no danger of dispossession, they cannot recover under the policy.
“the policy is .very clearly not insurance against title defects, nor is it a policy insuring the merchantability of title.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that the policy's scope is limited to possession insurance, not coverage for defective title generally
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1951, the Burnettes purchased property in Orange County and obtained a title insurance policy with a face amount of $3,600 from Title & Trust Compa…
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 Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal to review a final judgment in favor of Title & Trust Company, a Florida corporation, the defendant below and appel-lee here, wherein the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was dismissed and judgment entered in an action upon a title policy.
In 1951 the plaintiffs purchased the property involved in Orange County, the defendant covering the same with a title in*736surance policy in tlie face amount of $3,-600.00. The policy provides under paragraph 6, as follows:
“No claim for damages shall arise under this policy except under the several provisions, conditions and stipulations of the policy, and then only (1) Where there has been a final determination in a court of competent jurisdiction under which the insured, because of an adverse title insured against, may be dispossessed or evicted from the premises covered by this policy, or some part thereof, or some undivided share or interest therein, or (2) Where there has been a final determination adverse to the title, as insured, in such a court, upon a lien or encumbrance not excepted in this policy, or (3) Where the insurance is upon the interest of a mortgagee and the mortgage has been adjudged by a final determination in a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, of ineffectual to charge the premises described in this policy, or subject to prior lien or encumbrance not excepted in this policy, or (4) Where the insured shall have transferred the title insured by an instrument containing covenants in regard to title or warranty thereof, and there has been a final judgment rendered in a court of competent jurisdiction against the insured, or the executors or administrators of the insured, on any of such covenants or warranty, and because of some defect of title or encumbrance not excepted in this policy.”
In their second amended complaint the plaintiffs alleged that by the provisions of this policy, specifically paragraph 6, section 1, the appellee has contracted to protect them from any loss or damage which they might sustain should they be required to bring suit because of a defect in title; that is, if plaintiffs “may be dispossessed or evicted from the premises covered by this policy.” Plaintiffs further show that they were required to bring a suit to quiet title, in which suit they prevailed, and during which suit they were required to expend $3,600.00.
Plaintiffs take the position, therefore, that since they may have been dispossessed or evicted, and since the policy is, at best, ambiguous, this clause should be interpreted in their favor. But we are of the opinion that the policy is .very clearly not insurance against title defects, nor is it a policy insuring the merchantability of title. The foregoing clause from the policy very definitely limits the liability of the appel-lee to instances where there has been “ * * * a final determination in a court of competent jurisdiction under which the insured, * * * may be dispossessed or evicted from the premises covered by this policy, * * In other words, the policy by this limitation is confined to insurance as to possession by the insured, as opposed to insurance as to quantity, quality, or defects of title. And here, plaintiffs by their own allegations show that they prevailed below. Therefore, they are in no danger of being dispossessed, and cannot prevail herein.
The defendant, in taking the position that the language of paragraph 6, cited above, is so plain and unambiguous as to leave no room fo.r construction, cites the following cases in support of this contention: Palatine Ins. Co. v. Whitfield, 1917, 73 Fla. 716, 74 So. 869; Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 1935, 117 Fla. 889, 158 So. 502; Blumberg v. American Fire & Casualty Co., Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 182; and Bradley v. Associates Discount Corp., Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 857.
With the defendant’s contention we agree, and we hold that the trial court committed no error in its final judgment.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and FITS SELL, CARROLL W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Endruschat v. Am. Title Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as insured, as provided in paragraph 3 hereof . and because of an existing interpretation of a similar clause in Burnette v. Title and Trust Company of Florida, 155 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We do not agree for two reasons. First the wording of the clause in Burnette is not the same as in the instant policy. Second the argument that litigation must be commenced and concluded before the Title Company need become invol…
Authorities Cited
- Palatine Ins. Co. v. Whitfield, 73 Fla. 716 (Fla. 1917)
- Goldsby v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 117 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1935)
- Blumberg v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 51 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1951)
- Bradley v. Assocs. Disc. Corp., 58 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1952)
- Thomas v. State, 118 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1935)