Hart v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 2012 |
Docket Number | No. SCWC–29467.,SCWC–29467. |
Citation | 272 P.3d 1215,126 Hawai'i 448 |
Parties | Charles Mitchell HART and Lisa Marie Hart, Petitioners/Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent/Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Philip J. Leas, Calvert G. Chipchase, and Christopher T. Goodin (of Cades Schutte LLP) for petitioners/plaintiffs-appellants.
Wayne P. Nasser, Francis P. Hogan, and Connie C. Chow (of Ashford & Wriston) for respondent/defendant-appellee.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs–Appellants Charles Mitchell Hart and Lisa Marie Hart ("the Harts") filed a timely application for a writ of certiorari ("Application"), urging this court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals' ("ICA") July 21, 2011 summary disposition order and September 21, 2011 judgment on appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the district court of the first circuit ("district court") entered on December 4, 2008 ("judgment")1 in favor of Respondent/Defendant–Appellee TICOR Title Insurance Company ("TICOR") on the Harts' claim for breach of contract. The district court's judgment also specified that the Harts' motion for partial summary judgment filed on October 21, 2008 was denied, and awarded TICOR attorneys' fees of $5,000.00 and costs of $281.49.
We accepted the Harts' Application, which presents the following questions:
Based on the analysis below, we vacate the ICA's judgment and reverse the judgment of the district court in favor of TICOR. We also vacate the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to TICOR. We remand the case to the district court with instructions (1) to enter judgment in favor of the Harts, and (2) to determine an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the Harts, with the specific instruction that the Harts' award be limited to the period of time from the Harts' tender of defense to TICOR until the escheat claim reached resolution through written court order.
This appeal arises from TICOR's refusal to defend the Harts under their title insurance policy against an escheat2 claim asserted by the State of Hawai‘i. The Harts purchased a title insurance policy from TICOR for their property comprised of two lots in Ewa Beach ("Policy"); TICOR issued the Policy on July 13, 2005.3 The Policy provides, in relevant part:
(Emphasis added). Additionally, the Policy includes the following "Conditions and Stipulations," in relevant part:
The Policy contains the following "Exclusions from Coverage," in relevant part:
Additionally, Schedule B to the Policy provides, in relevant part:
On August 2, 2005, the Harts filed a Land Court petition to consolidate their two lots into one parcel.4 In response to the Harts' proceeding, the State of Hawai‘i ("State") filed an answer to the Harts' petition for consolidation ("Answer") on October 24, 2005. The State's answer asserted present interests in the Harts' property, in relevant part:
(Emphasis added). The State then requested the following affirmative relief from the Land Court regarding its escheat claim:
Later, on October 30, 2006, the State again asserted these same claims in its answer to the Harts' amended petition for consolidation ("Answer to Amended Petition"). Ultimately, through its answer and answer to amended petition, the State twice asserted its present interest in the Harts' property by way of escheat and twice asked the Land Court for affirmative relief.
The Harts tendered their defense against all the State's claims to TICOR on November 7, 2005. TICOR refused the Harts' tender on January 4, 2006. TICOR's January 4, 2006 response collectively categorized the State's claims, reservations and defenses as the TICOR explained that because the Harts did not specify which of the they were tendering to TICOR, TICOR assumed that the tender was "for the defense of the State's water and mineral rights, native tenants' rights, erosion and shoreline setback claims." Based on the Policy's Exclusions for Coverage and Schedule B, TICOR concluded that defense of these specific claims was excluded under the Policy.
The Harts replied on January 9, 2006, contending that TICOR TICOR disagreed. Significantly, however, in a March 9, 2006 letter to the Harts, TICOR conceded that a claim of escheat is not excluded from coverage, but contended that "[w]hile escheat to the state is not a matter which is excluded from coverage, it does not appear that the [S]tate is currently making any claim of escheat." Rather, the State "has merely reserved its right to make that claim at some point in the future." Accordingly, in TICOR's view, the State did not assert any "claim" that fell within the Harts' Policy coverage.
Consequently, the Harts proceeded to defend against all of the State's claims in Land Court. The Harts filed a motion for summary judgment to resolve all encumbrances on title claimed by the State ("Motion for Summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Imperial Plaza v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...“courts are to construe insurance policies in accord with the reasonable expectations of a layperson.” Hart v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 126 Hawai'i 448, 456, 272 P.3d 1215 (2012). The Hawai'i Supreme Court has held that, “because insurance policies are contracts of adhesion and are premised on......
-
Kobashigawa v. Silva
...or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” Hart v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 126 Hawai‘i 448, 455, 272 P.3d 1215, 1222 (2012) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pruett, 118 Hawai‘i 174, 179, 186 P.3d 609, 614 (2008)) (brackets in original......
-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...to defend.3.In recognition of the fact that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, Hart v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 126 Hawai‘i 448, 458, 272 P.3d 1215, 1225 (2012), courts have held that "if an exclusion may operate to relieve an insurer of its duty to indemnify and the app......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cabalis
...992 P.2d 93, 106–07 (2000) (internal citations, quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted)); see also Hart v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 126 Hawai‘i 448, 272 P.3d 1215, 1223 (2012). The insurer owes the insured a duty to indemnify “for any loss or injury which comes within the coverage pro......
-
Summaries of Notable Tort Cases in 2012
...Willis v. Swain; Brown v. Marquez; and Prim Ltd. Co. v. Pace-O-Matic, Inc. Hart v. TICOR Title Insurance Company, 126 Hawai'i 448, 272 P.3d 1215 (2012) - Bad Faith/Insurance Coverage Held: (1) State's escheat reservation in its answer in purchasers' action to consolidate two real property l......