Trinder v. Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance, 22 A.3d 493

Trinders purchased land on January 3, 2005 and obtained an expanded title insurance policy from Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company.
Policy covered risks including defense against a unmarketable title and removal of an existing structure that extends onto adjoining land or an easement.
The septic system encroached onto Mount Holly Community Historical Museum's property; letters in 2007–2008 suggested potential revocation of permission but no removal demand.
Insurer denied coverage on August 19, 2008 citing an encroachment exception and no title defect.
Homeowners sued September 5, 2008 for declaratory relief to require insurer to defend under forced removal/marketability provisions; museum was a defendant.
Trial court held no coverage under forced removal or marketability; Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding clause unambiguous and not triggered; issue of encumbrance preservation deemed not preserved for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does forced removal cover encroachment when neighbor does not demand removal?	Trinders: clause broad enough to cover coercion and removal even absent a removal demand.	Trinders: clause requires explicit removal action by neighbor; not triggered here.	No coverage under forced removal.
Does marketability coverage apply where encroachment does not threaten title defective status?	Trinders: encroachment renders title unmarketable and thus covered.	Insurer: encroachment does not create an unmarketable title under the policy.	No coverage under marketability.
Was the encumbrance/encroachment-related issue properly preserved for review under the encumbrance provision?	Trinders asserted coverage under encumbrances but did not clearly rely on that provision at trial.	Insurer: preservation failed; issue not properly raised with specificity.	Issue not preserved; not reached.

Manneck v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1294 (Cal. App. 1994) (no duty to pursue forced removal absent court order or imminent destruction)
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Dahlmann, 2006 WI 65 (Wis. 2006) (substantial encroachment onto adjoining land as encumbrance under certain policies)
McAlister v. Vt. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2006 VT 85 (Vt. 2006) (uniform contract interpretation, give terms their plain meaning, avoid strained constructions)
Town of Troy v. American Fid. Co., 120 Vt. 410 (1958) (contracts interpreted to give effect to the entire agreement; weigh specific over general provisions)