Kay H. Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., 2013 ME 8

Cox acquired Junipers (Unit 3) in 1998, subject to a Declaration and an Easement Agreement referenced in Exhibit A.
The 1966 Sholik deed created a view easement over the Sholik property for Frost/Gray, later released by the 1998 Easement Agreement.
Cox reviewed and signed the Cox Agreement acknowledging the Condominium Declaration and its terms, including the view easement reference.
Commonwealth issued title insurance effective April 10, 1998, insuring against defects, liens, or encumbrances on the described property, with Exhibit A mirroring Cox’s Exhibit A and noting transfer from Turbat Creek to Cox.
Policy exclusions include general exclusion 3(a) and Schedule B exceptions 6, 7, and 15, which reference the easement and the Condominium Declaration.
In 2010 Sahin sued Cox alleging entitlement to the view easement; Cox tendered defense to Commonwealth, which refused based on exclusions and exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Commonwealth have a duty to defend against Sahin's claim?	Cox argues there is a duty to defend under the policy.	Commonwealth argues exclusions and exceptions negate the duty to defend.	Yes; the duty to defend exists due to ambiguity in the policy.
Is the policy language ambiguous about the view easement?	Cox contends ambiguity requires a defense in favor of the insured.	Commonwealth contends the exclusions/explicit references remove ambiguity.	Yes; ambiguity persists regarding the view easement and coverage.

Mitchell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 A.3d 876 (Me. 2011) (duty to defend based on potential coverage)
Penney v. Capitol City Transfer, Inc., 707 A.2d 387 (Me. 1998) (duty to defend evaluated on tendered complaint)
Home Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 229 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000) (interpretation of policy language under Maine law)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bryant, 38 A.3d 1267 (Me. 2012) (de novo review of insurance policy interpretation; plain meaning)