GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First American Title Insurance, 464 Mass. 733

First American issued a title insurance policy to GMAC and sought to reform Moore's deed or equitably subrogate GMAC behind Moore's mortgage.
A title defect left Moore as record title holder, excluding GMAC, due to mis-recording of deed and mortgage before Thomas's death.
GMAC's underlying claims and the title issues were pursued in Land Court and then Moore sued in Superior Court for related tort and contract claims.
The Chief Justice transferred the Land Court action to Superior Court for consolidation with Moore's action, but GMAC removed the case to federal court before docketing the transfer, preventing formal consolidation.
GMAC sought defense costs from First American in federal court; the district judge stayed to obtain certified questions regarding the extent of the title insurer's duty to defend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the in for one, in for all rule applies in title insurance.	Moore's actions overlapped with title issues; First American should defend all claims.	Title insurance is narrower; not all claims are within coverage, so complete defense is inappropriate.	No; title insurer does not defend the entire action for all claims.
Whether a title insurer initiating litigation to cure a defect must defend all reasonably foreseeable counterclaims.	Initiating litigation creates risk of counterclaims that insurer should defend against.	Imposing broad defense duties expands beyond title policy scope and undermines contract.	No; generally no duty to defend against all foreseeable counterclaims, with possible exception of compulsory counterclaims.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2001) (complete defense rule for general liability insurance; must defend whole action if any covered claim exists)
Mt. Airy Ins. Co. v. Greenbaum, 127 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1997) (in for one, in for all principle cited in context of defense obligations)
Simplex Techs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 196 (1999) (illustrates broad defense obligation in general liability context)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 413 Mass. 730 (1992) (discusses complete defense principle in Massachusetts)
Doe v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 423 Mass. 366 (1996) (recognizes defense duties in Massachusetts insurance law context)
Boston Symphony Orch., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 7 (1989) (illustrates Massachusetts approach to insurer defense duties)