Martin E. and Mary E. McGonagle v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 432 S.W.3d 535

McGonagles purchased property in Granbury, Texas, subject to a dedication instrument requiring relocation of a bungalow and city approvals;
They knew of the dedication instrument and allegedly sought its removal before closing, with seller allegedly promising it was taken care of;
The purchase contract incorporated the Granbury Historical Society Agreement and attached the dedication instrument, binding on current owner and successors;
At closing they obtained a Stewart Title title policy with exclusions, including unmarketable title and a Schedule B exception for restrictive covenants that was deleted;
McGonagles relied on the deletion to conclude the dedication instrument had been removed and would not affect title or resale;
They sued the seller and Stewart Title for breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, and Texas Insurance Code/DTCA violations; trial court granted summary judgments in Stewart Title’s favor; appellate court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the title policy cover losses from the dedication instrument?	McGonagles argue the dedication is a title defect within covered risks or at least not excluded;	Stewart Title contends the dedication instrument does not affect ownership and is excluded as an assumed defect;	No coverage; dedication instrument does not affect fee simple ownership and is excluded as assumed.
Did deleting the Schedule B exception constitute a misrepresentation about title or coverage?	McGonagles rely on Garrett to claim deletion implied removal of instrument and misrepresented coverage;	Deletion simply reflects form practice; no misrepresentation or duty to disclose remained.	Deletion not a misrepresentation; insurer owed no duty to inform about remaining encumbrances; no liability.

Hanson Bus. Park, L.P. v. First Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 209 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (title defect requires ownership impact; marketable title vs. ownership rights)
First City Mortg. Co. v. Gillis, 694 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (insured presumed to know contract terms; contract governs)
First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. 1993) (insertion of none of record constitutes misrepresentation; deletion differs)
Miller Global Props., LLC v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 418 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (arm’s-length contract terms govern expectations)
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. McDaniel, 875 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. 1994) (insurer indemnifies against title defects; no duty to disclose encumbrances)
Hanson, 209 S.W.3d 867, same as above () (reiterated)
Martinka v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 836 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (insurer not required to point out encumbrances; indemnity scope)
First Am. Title Co. of El Paso v. Prata, 783 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989) (covenants that cloud title may affect title)