Centurion Properties III LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Co, 2:12-cv-05130

Chicago Title acted as escrow agent/closing agent and title insurer for CPIII's Battelle Memorial property purchase and recorded the GECC Deed of Trust.
Six liens were placed on the property; four liens were recorded by Chicago Title, two others by different title companies, raising questions of authorization.
GECC loan documents prohibited encumbrances without GECC's approval, and Chicago Title received copies of the CPIII Operating Agreement and GECC Loan Agreement during closing.
Plaintiffs allege that recording unauthorized encumbrances caused GECC to declare default and impose default interest, damaging CPIII and prompting bankruptcy proceedings.
Chicago Title conceded negligence for summary judgment purposes but contested existence of a duty of care under Washington law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of care existence	Plaintiffs contend title company owed a duty to third parties to refrain from negligently recording liens.	Chicago Title argues no duty exists under Washington law for a title company toward third parties in this context.	No duty found; court rejects proposed duty for title companies.
Causation given no duty	Without a duty, causation not needed, but if duty existed, negligent recording caused damages.	Causation remains unproven and is not addressed absent a duty.	Causation issues not reached due to absence of duty.
Rule 56(d) extension and exhibit admissibility	Requests Rule 56(d) extension to develop causation through discovery and admits supplemental exhibits.	Extension and exhibits should be struck or denied as moot because duty is threshold issue.	Rule 56(d) extension denied as moot; supplemental exhibits denied as moot.

Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341 (2008) (foreseeability limits duty scope, not existence)
Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (2002) (foreseeability informs duty's scope, not existence)
Osborn v. Mason Cnty., 157 Wn.2d 18 (2006) (duty of care question is a threshold legal issue)
Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., 170 Wn.2d 442 (2010) (duty analysis weighs logic, policy, precedent)
Barstad v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 145 Wn.2d 528 (2002) (no general duty to disclose title defects in preliminary commitments)
Klickman v. Title Guar. Co. of Lewis Cnty., 105 Wn.2d 526 (1986) (third party cannot impose duty on title insurer for preliminary commitments)
Walker v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 65 Wn. App. 399 (1992) (assumed duty in Walker not decided; distinguishable facts)
Seeley v. Seymour, 190 Cal. App. 3d 844 (1987) (California case not binding; difference in obligations)
Barstad v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (alternative citation), 145 Wn.2d 528 (2002) (reiterates no general duty to disclose defects)
Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854 (1994) (slander of title elements; malice via lack of good faith)
Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233 (2001) (policy considerations in negligence analysis)
Miebach v. Colasurdo, 102 Wn.2d 170 (1984) (constructive notice can trigger liability in real property)