Walker v. Anderson-Oliver Title Insurance Agency, Inc.
309 P.3d 267
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2003 A-O Title (agent for Stewart Title) prepared a title insurance commitment and policy for buyers of commercial property (Bank Property) in Moab; buyers did not request an abstract of title.
- While searching records, A-O discovered two 1969 special warranty "Access Deeds" recorded by Walker asserting easement/parking over the Bank Property; A-O concluded the deeds were invalid and did not list them as exceptions in the commitment or policy.
- Buyers closed with title insured by Stewart/A-O; later sought to expand, triggering Walker’s claim of an easement; a federal jury found no easement from the recorded deeds but found Walker had an easement via other doctrines.
- Walker sued the title defendants for negligence, tortious interference with economic relations, and sought attorney fees, alleging they acted as abstractors or otherwise owed him a duty to disclose the Access Deeds.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they acted only as title insurers (not abstractors) and therefore are generally liable only under the insurance contract; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the defendants did not assume abstractor duties and Walker’s tort claims failed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants assumed abstractor duties when issuing the commitment/policy | Walker: defendants’ title search and exclusion of the Access Deeds shows they acted as abstractors and assumed tort duties | Defs: they acted as title insurers performing statutorily required underwriting searches, not as abstractors | Held: No; as a matter of law they did not assume abstractor duties (Culp/Chapman) |
| Whether defendants breached a separate duty to Walker (negligence) | Walker: choosing to insure over and not disclose the deeds created an independent duty to disclose to Walker | Defs: any analysis/decision to insure over a matter is part of insurer underwriting and not a separate tort duty | Held: No separate tort duty; decision was within insurer role—negligence claim fails |
| Whether defendants’ conduct constituted "improper means" for tortious interference | Walker: industry standards/defendants’ internal policies required disclosing encumbrances; failure is improper means | Defs: internal policies do not establish an industry-wide standard; enforcing such a standard would collapse insurer and abstractor roles | Held: Evidence insufficient to prove industry standard; claim would impose abstractor duties and is barred |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under third-party tort rule | Walker: seeks fees as damage from tort claims | Defs: underlying tort claims fail | Held: No fees—underlying tort claims fail so third-party tort rule recovery unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Culp Constr. Co. v. Buildmart Mall, 795 P.2d 650 (Utah 1990) (distinguishes insurer vs. abstractor duties; insurer may assume abstractor duties under special facts)
- Chapman v. Uintah Cnty., 81 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (title commitment/policy not an abstract; insurer generally not liable in tort for omissions)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc., 192 P.3d 858 (Utah 2008) (elements of intentional interference with economic relations)
- Sevy v. Security Title Co., 902 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995) (title company liable when negligent in performing contractual drafting/perfection duties)
- Christenson v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 666 P.2d 302 (Utah 1983) (liability where title company negligently misled known reliance party)