Whitlock v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 732 S.E.2d 626

Purchase of property October 30, 2006, with a spoilage easement not disclosed in the title policy.
Property along the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach; the spoilage easement existed since 1931.
Insured bought owner’s title policy for $410,000, coverage amount equal to purchase price.
In January 2010, insured learned of the spoilage easement, which prevented obtaining a building permit.
Real estate market decline by 2010 reduced property value independent of the title defect; district court certified the timing question to the court.
The policy referenced “actual loss” but did not define it or specify the valuation date, creating ambiguity; majority held valuation as of the purchase date; district court interpreted the policy and the timing of loss as a contract question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timing of loss measurement under title policy	Plaintiff argues damages measured as of purchase date	Defendant argues damages measured as of discovery date	Ambiguity requires insured-favorable date; purchase date is controlling

Stanley v. Atl. Title Ins. Co., 377 S.C. 405 (S.C. 2008) (terms of policies control valuation method; goal to place insured in position at policy issuance)
M & M Corp. of S.C. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 255 (S.C. 2010) (contract interpretation; general rules apply to insurance contracts)
McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179 (S.C. 2009) (ambiguous policy terms construed in insured’s favor)
USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg, 377 S.C. 643 (S.C. 2008) (plain meaning governs if unambiguous; ambiguities construed in insured’s favor)
Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Homestead Indust., Inc., 318 S.C. 231 (S.C. 1995) (ambiguous terms construed in insured’s favor)