301 P.3d 500
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- C 1031 agreed to buy Spokane property in 2007; inspection acknowledged conditions including electrical systems and boundary lines.
- First American issued a preliminary title commitment with a notice requiring disclosure of known encumbrances not shown in schedule B.
- Whipple Consulting identified power lines and poles; C 1031 approved plans and submitted them for permits in Sept. 2007.
- Closing occurred Oct. 2007; policy covered easements of record but excluded those not shown by public record.
- Post-closing, C 1031 learned of a 1949 recorded Easement granting Avista rights; Avista offered to bury lines at substantial cost.
- C 1031 sued First American for breach of title insurance; trial court found knowledge issue to be fact-based and left damages and knowledge questions to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge exclusion is a question of law | C 1031 argues knowledge exclusion should be decided as a matter of law. | First American contends knowledge means actual knowledge; fact questions remain for trial. | Knowledge means actual knowledge; error to leave to trier of fact. |
| Damages determination under breach of contract | Damages should be awarded per expert affidavit without further dispute. | Damages require fact-finding given divergent measures and lack of sheltering facts. | Damages issues remain for trial; summary judgment on damages is inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quadrant Corp. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 154 Wn.2d 165 (2005) (analysis of summary judgment and insurance contract interpretation)
- Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wn.2d 396 (2004) (interpretation of policy language; de novo review)
- Kim v. Lee, 145 Wn.2d 79 (2001) (title insurance standards and reliance on insurer's search)
- Kiniski v. Archway Motel, Inc., 21 Wn. App. 555 (1978) (guaranty of title insurer's accuracy)