Lurie v. Commonwealth Land Title Company, Llc,

558 S.W.3d 583 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On August 5, 1998, P purchased a home and an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (the Policy). The Policy was underwritten by D. The Policy states it is meant to protect P from defects, encumbrances, or liens in title, unmarketability of title, and lack of right to access to and from land. The Policy also states D would pay costs, attorney's fees, and expenses incurred in defense of title. In July 2003, P's back yard neighbor, Polinsky, replaced the fence between Polinsky's and P's homes. P believed the fence encroached onto his property. On July 24, 2008, P filed a lawsuit against Polinsky, demanding he remove the fence. On December 16, 2009, P dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On December 10, 2010, P filed a second lawsuit against Polinsky, demanding he remove the fence. On June 29, 2012, P dismissed the second lawsuit without prejudice. The parties then privately settled. P incurred $68,740.25 in attorney's fees. In 2015, P sought reimbursement from D under the Policy's coverage of third-party challenges to title. D first became aware of P's claims against Polinsky on August 25, 2015, when P sued D, alleging Breach of Contract in Count I of his petition; in Count II, Unjust Enrichment; and in Count III, Vexatious Refusal to Pay. On March 1, 2016, P submitted a claim under the policy to D for his attorney's fees incurred in his 2008 and 2010 lawsuits. On July 6, 2016, D denied the claim because P failed to timely notify D of the lawsuits. P and D moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to D because of P's unexcused failure to provide timely notice of his claims, which prejudiced D. P appealed. P claimed in part that the requirement of prompt notice in the insurance policy is vague, undefined, and unenforceable, and D was unable to establish any nonspeculative evidence to show actual prejudice from any claimed failure to notify by P.