First Am. Title Ins. v. First Title

Full title: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 21, 1982

423 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 82-431.

December 21, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Monroe County, M. Ignatius Lester, J.

Buck Tatum and Thomas R. Tatum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Turner, Fascell Russo and S. Alan Stanley, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ., and KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed a charge against an abstract company for negligent preparation of an abstract brought by one not in privity with the abstract company. A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1973); Sickler v. Indian River Abstract Guaranty Co., 142 Fla. 528, 195 So. 195 (1940); Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Company, 363 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Chelsea Title Guarantee Company v. Louis Briggs Construction, Inc., 315 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Williams v. Polgar, 391 Mich. 6, 215 N.W.2d 149 (1974).

We affirm and agree with the reasoning of the appellee that Sickler v. Indian River Abstract Guaranty Co., supra, correctly states the rule of liability as to abstract companies in Florida today. The liability of an abstract company extends only to the parties who either contract with the company or are in privity with it and further that Sickler v. Indian River Abstract Guaranty Co., supra, was not overruled by the Supreme Court in A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, supra, the decision by the 1st DCA in Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Company, supra, ¹ to the contrary, notwithstanding.

1 We realize that this opinion is in direct conflict with Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Company, supra, and hereby certify as to such conflict in accordance with Art. 5, Sec. 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution as amended in 1980.

Therefore the final order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, Judge (specially concurring).

While I do not believe that Sickler should be the law of Florida, I do agree that it was not overruled by Moyer. Under Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1973), therefore, I have no choice but to agree to affirmance, secure in the knowledge that, since this conclusion is in certified direct conflict with Kovaleski, the issue will be resolved by the supreme court, which alone has the authority to do so.