A title insurance company (P) issued title insurance policies for two lots, relying on title abstracts prepared by a title abstractor (D). The abstract did not note the existence of a judgment lien against the seller of the lots. After the sale had taken place, the holder of the judgment made demand on the new owners of the property for payment. As a result, P paid approximately $75,000 to satisfy the judgment. There was no privity of contract between P and D, but P alleged that D knew that, at the time that the abstracts were being prepared, someone other than the person ordering the abstracts would be relying on them as providing an accurate summation of all recorded instruments affecting title to the lots. D moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The lower court granted the motion. P appeals.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.