Golden Security Thrift & Loan Assn. v. First American Title Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 30 January 1997 |
Docket Number | No. G018891,G018891 |
Citation | 53 Cal.App.4th 250,61 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1620, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3062 GOLDEN SECURITY THRIFT & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
Hunt, Ortmann, Blasco, Palffy & Rossell, Inc. and Craig N. Rossell, Pasadena, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rutan & Tucker, Robert C. Braun and Ina Raileanu, Costa Mesa, for Defendant and Respondent.
Golden Security Thrift & Loan Association (Golden Security) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of First American Title Insurance Company (First American) in Golden Security's action arising out of the insurer's denial of a claim. We affirm.
In 1992, Golden Security loaned William M. Green $450,000 to purchase a parcel of land in Montclair, California. Golden Security, as the named insured, obtained title insurance from First American--an ALTA 1 lender's policy and two endorsements, only one of which is relevant here. The CLTA 2 Form 116 endorsement contains the clause which has given rise to this lawsuit. It provides, in pertinent part, (Italics added.)
It is undisputed the boundaries of the irregularly-shaped lot are depicted on the map as follows: 380 feet in length on the east side, 360 feet (115 plus 90 plus 155) on the west side, 130 feet wide on the north side, 140 feet on the south side and 20 feet at the southwest corner. And it is undisputed those boundaries are, in fact, accurate and correct according to the pertinent public records.
Herein lies the problem: In addition to the boundary figures, the map contains a notation stating, "2.06 AC M/L," meaning the total area of the property is 2.06 acres, more or less. However, the actual area encompassed within the boundaries is 1.36 acres, more or less.
Green defaulted on the loan. Golden Security foreclosed, purchased the property and put it up for sale. Anticipating a substantial loss due to the discrepancy between the stated and actual total acreage, it gave First American notice of a claim under the policy. 3 First American denied the claim, asserting the policy insured against inaccuracies as to the location and dimensions of the parcel, but not as to mathematical calculations regarding total acreage or area.
Golden Security sued, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief. All theories of recovery were based on First American's refusal to indemnify for any loss occasioned by the acreage discrepancy or, as Golden Security calls it, the "shortage of area."
First American and Golden Security both moved for summary judgment. First American contended the insured could not prove its claim was covered because it admitted the actual location and dimensions of the property were precisely as depicted on the map. Golden Security argued the word "dimensions" as used in the Form 116 endorsement, was either synonymous with "area," or susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, so as to be construed against the insurer.
The trial court granted summary judgment to First American. In its notice of ruling, it stated, A formal written order was subsequently filed 4 and summary judgment entered in favor of First American.
Golden Security contends the trial court erred in determining the meaning of the word "dimensions." The sole issue is proper construction of an instrument. Extrinsic evidence was admitted as an aid to interpretation. That evidence--dictionary definitions, industry usage, mathematical terminology, etc.--was not in conflict. Thus, we are not bound by the trial court's interpretation, but independently determine the meaning of the policy. (Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 866, 44 Cal.Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839; Delucchi v. Santa Cruz County (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 821, 225 Cal.Rptr. 43.)
Analysis of a written contract starts with an examination of its language. (Civ.Code, § 1639.) In insurance coverage cases, (American Star Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of the West (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1320, 1325, 284 Cal.Rptr. 45, citations omitted.)
Golden Security contends its claim falls within the scope of the basic coverage of the policy. It carries the burden of proof of that element. (Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395, 406, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292, 770 P.2d 704; see also Intel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (9th Cir.1991) 952 F.2d 1551, 1557 [].) Even on a motion for summary judgment by the insurer, the burden remains with the insured. As provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (o)(2),
The basic coverage at issue is the assurance the attached assessor's map "shows the correct location and dimensions of said land according to [public] records." (Italics added.) Golden Security contends the word "dimensions" is synonymous with "size/area/square footage/acreage" and like descriptions of the "magnitude" or "extent" of the surface space occupied. It further asserts if "dimensions" is capable of two meanings, it is ambiguous and, because not defined in the policy, should be interpreted to include area, square footage, acreage, and other words embracing the concept of overall size. First American contends "dimensions," in common understanding and usage, in dictionary definitions and in mathematics, inter alia, refers to measurements such as length and width, height and depth, which are linear in nature, extending in a single direction. "Area," on the other hand, must be calculated with reference to the dimensions of a given geometric figure. First American says the words are not interchangeable. We agree.
Civil Code section 1644 provides, "The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed." As stated by our Supreme Court, "The clear and explicit meaning of [contract] provisions, interpreted in their ordinary and popular sense ... controls judicial interpretation." (AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822, 274 Cal.Rptr. 820, 799 P.2d 1253, internal citations and quotation marks omitted, italics added.)
We take judicial notice of various dictionary definitions of "dimensions" (Evid.Code, § 451, subd. (e)), as the best arbiter of the ordinary and popular meaning, i.e., "[t]he true signification" of the word. (Evide.Code, § 451, subd. (e).) According to Webster's New World Dictionary (3d College ed. 1988), the word indicates a "measuring off," and means, inter alia, The word "area" is not found anywhere in the definition. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1983) defines "dimension" as (Italics added.) Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1981) states "a plane...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosen v. Nations Title Ins. Co.
...a duty to defend. Absent such a contractual duty, the cause of action cannot stand. (Golden Security Thrift & Loan Assn. v. First American Title Ins. Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 250, 258, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 442, hereafter "Golden Security.") An insurer must defend its insured if the insurer becom......
-
W. World Ins. Co. v. Nonprofits Ins. Alliance of Cal.
...of an insurance policy focuses closely on the language used in the provisions at issue. Golden Sec. Thrift & Loan Ass'n v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 53 Cal.App.4th 250, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 442, 444 (1997) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1639 ). Without a clear indication to the contrary, "[t]he ‘clear ......
-
Hovannisian v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.
...cases, ‘the proper initial focus must be the language of the policy itself....’ " ( Golden Security Thrift & Loan Assn. v. First American Title Ins. Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 250, 255, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 442.)Title insurance is defined by statute as "insuring, guaranteeing or indemnifying owner......
-
Medina v. GEICO Indem. Co.
...to the insured to show a triable issue of material fact as to coverage. (See, e.g., Golden Security Thrift & Loan Assn. v. First American Title Ins. Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 250, 255, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 442.) The parties disagree about whether the non-owned auto provision is part of the GEICO ......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2013
...62 (2013).27. Id. at 71.28. 116 Cal. App. 3d 658 (1981).29. See, e.g., Golden Sec. Thrift & Loan Ass'n v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 53 Cal. App. 4th 250, 257 (1997).30. 133 S. Ct. 2586, 570 U.S. __ (2013).31. 545 U.S. 469 (2005).32. Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), holds ......