Laabs v. Chicago Title Insurance
241 N.W.2d 434, 72 Wis. 2d 503, 1976 Wisc. LEXIS 1424 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A title insurance policy covers a loss from a pre-existing title defect unless a policy exclusion clearly applies. An exclusion for defects 'known to the insured' is ineffective if the trial court, weighing conflicting evidence, finds as a fact that the insured did not have such knowledge prior to the policy's issuance.
Facts:
- Theodore and Selma Laabs and their neighbors, the McKenzies, owned adjoining parcels of real estate with overlapping property descriptions in their deeds, creating a disputed parcel.
- The Laabs' deed contained a scrivener's error, causing it to be improperly indexed in public records.
- The McKenzies' predecessor in title, Mrs. Yunk, testified that she had disputes with the Laabs in 1962 and 1966 over a fence the Laabs were building on the disputed property line and had torn it down.
- Mr. McKenzie testified that approximately one week before the Laabs' title insurance policy was issued, he encountered Mrs. Laabs on the disputed land, and she accused him of trespassing.
- The Laabs applied for and obtained a title insurance policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company.
- During the application process, the Laabs did not disclose any boundary dispute to the insurance company.
- Mrs. Laabs testified that she had no knowledge of any dispute with her neighbors concerning the property line before the policy was issued and that she and her husband were merely continuing to build a fence started years earlier.
Procedural Posture:
- Theodore and Selma Laabs sued their neighbors, the McKenzies, in a state trial court to quiet title to a disputed parcel of land.
- The McKenzies filed a counterclaim against the Laabs.
- Laabs requested that their insurer, Chicago Title Insurance Company, defend them against the counterclaim, but the company refused, citing policy exceptions.
- Laabs then sued Chicago Title in the same trial court for breach of the insurance policy.
- The trial court first held a trial on the quiet title action, ruling that the disputed land belonged to the McKenzies, not the Laabs.
- The trial court then ruled in the action against the company, finding that the insurance policy covered the Laabs' loss and entering judgment against the company.
- Chicago Title Insurance Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a title insurance policy's exclusion for defects known to the insured but not disclosed to the insurer bar coverage when the trial court, weighing conflicting evidence, finds that the insured did not have knowledge of the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Connor T. Hansen, J.
No. The policy's exclusion for undisclosed known defects does not bar coverage because an appellate court must defer to the trial court's factual finding that the insured did not know of the defect. The trial court heard conflicting testimony regarding whether the Laabs were aware of the boundary dispute before obtaining their policy. The court found the Laabs' testimony credible and determined as a matter of fact that they did not know of the dispute. An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact unless they are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Since there was credible evidence to support the trial court's finding, it must be upheld. The insurer's other arguments—that coverage is excluded because the insured never truly had an 'interest' in the land, that the insured 'created' the defect by building a fence, and that the insured suffered no 'loss'—are also rejected, as they would neutralize the primary insuring clauses and defeat the reasonable expectations of the insured.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts give to a trial court's findings of fact, especially those based on witness credibility. It illustrates the principle that ambiguities in an insurance contract are construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage, upholding the reasonable expectations of the policyholder. The court's broad interpretation of 'loss' to include the failure to get what one thought they had is a key takeaway for title insurance law, preventing insurers from denying claims on the technicality that the insured never legally owned the defective part of the title.
