Transamerica Ins. v. Building Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Denny's v. Security Union Title Ins. Co.

    71 Wn. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 55 times
    Finding coverage even where the land covered by the insured's claim was clearly excluded by the policy's description of land, because other provisions of the policy reasonably implied coverage

    An extended coverage title insurance policy from which exclusions for off-record defects have been removed is presumed to insure against the defect previously excluded. ( Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Northwest Bldg. Corp., 54 Wn. App. 289, is overruled insofar as it is inconsistent.) [11] Insurance β€” Construction of Policy β€” Scope of Coverage β€” Absence of Exclusion.

  2. First American Title Ins. Co. v. Dahlmann

    2006 WI 65 (Wis. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that substantial encroachment onto adjoining land was an encumbrance and covered under title insurance contract where survey and encroachment exception was deleted from policy

    See Havstad v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 58 Cal. App. 4th 654, 660 (1997) (title insurance policy did not insure title to improvements that encroached into a public street when the policy "clearly and explicitly" denned "land" not to include "any property beyond the lines of the area described . . . in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets . . ." (emphasis omitted)); Heyd v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 354 N.W.2d 154 (Neb. 1984) (title insurance policy did not cover the encroachment of insured's house onto public street because encroachment did not create a defect in title to insured land); Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Northwest Bldg. Corp., 773 P.2d 431, 433 (Wash. 1989) (title insurance policy did not insure title to paved area encroaching onto adjacent private land, as "[t]he encroaching areas of land and improvements at issue extend beyond the borders of the legal description, and thus are expressly excluded from coverage by the policy's unambiguous terms.") (abrogated by Denny's Restaurants, Inc. v. Sec. Union Title Ins. Co., 859 P.2d 619 (Wash.Ct.App. 1993)). ΒΆ 12. "Title insurance is a contract of indemnity which obligates the title insurer to pay loss as defined by the policy."

  3. Santos v. Sinclair

    76 Wn. App. 320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that reference to the legal description of the property containing an easement was sufficient to incorporate the easement into a title insurance policy, despite insurer's argument that policy documents did not "explicitly describe any easement being insured"

    Ticor responds that coverage in a title insurance policy is limited to the property specifically described in the policy, citing Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Northwest Bldg. Corp., 54 Wn. App. 289, 773 P.2d 431, review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1008 (1989) as authority. Based upon this rule, Ticor argues that because schedule A, paragraph 4 does not explicitly describe any easement being insured, the policy's coverage does not include the easement.