Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. Rm Kids, LLC ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                               FOURTH DIVISION
    DOYLE, P. J.,
    COOMER and MARKLE, JJ.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    October 17, 2019
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A19A0971. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
    COMPANY v. RM KIDS, LLC.
    MARKLE, Judge.
    In the second appearance of this case before this Court, Old Republic National
    Title Insurance Company (“Old Republic”) appeals from the denial of its motion for
    directed verdict in a trial for breach of contract, in which the jury found in favor of
    RM Kids and awarded damages in the amount of $4.2 million. See Old Republic Nat.
    Title Ins. Co. v. RM Kids, LLC., 
    337 Ga. App. 638
     (788 SE2d 542) (2016). On appeal,
    Old Republic argues that there was no defect in title that would trigger coverage
    under the title insurance policy, and that, in any event, RM Kids suffered no damages.
    After a thorough review of the evidence, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
    conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict because
    there was a defect in the title that triggered coverage, and RM Kids proffered some
    evidence from which the jury could determine damages.
    [O]n appeal from the denial of a motion for a directed verdict or a
    motion for j.n.o.v., we construe the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the party opposing the motion, and the standard of review is whether
    there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict. And because jurors
    are the sole and exclusive judges of the weight and credit given to the
    evidence, we must construe the evidence with every inference and
    presumption in favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the
    evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the
    evidence is in conflict. Nevertheless, we review questions of law de
    novo.
    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 337 Ga. App.
    at 648 (5). Moreover,
    [t]he direction of a verdict is proper only where there is no conflict in
    the evidence as to any material issue, and the evidence introduced, with
    all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.
    When there is opinion evidence, circumstantial evidence, presumptions
    of fact, or evidence subject to more than one reasonable construction,
    the appellate courts shall carefully scrutinize the grant of a directed
    verdict, because such evidence may be construed as providing the “any
    evidence” creating a jury question.
    2
    (Citation omitted.) Canton Plaza, Inc. v. Regions Bank, Inc., 
    315 Ga. App. 303
    ,
    303-304 (732 SE2d 449) (2012); see also OCGA § 9-11-50 (a).
    The underlying facts are undisputed and are set out in our prior opinion. See
    Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 337 Ga. App. at 638-641. In summary, in the early
    1990’s, one of Colonial Pipeline Company’s (“Colonial”) pumping stations leaked
    petroleum into the ground water on an area of land known as “Black Hawk Ranch”
    near Dacula, Georgia. Pursuant to a consent order between Colonial and the Georgia
    Environmental Protection Division, Colonial acquired the Black Hawk Ranch
    property and began remediation and monitoring.
    In 2005, after reducing the contamination, Colonial sold the property to Black
    Hawk Ranch, LLC, pursuant to a limited warranty deed. Attached to the deed was
    “Exhibit C,” which provided the following:
    In connection with the conveyance of the Property pursuant to this
    Limited Warranty Deed, Grantor hereby notifies Grantee and its
    successors and assigns that petroleum contamination, including
    groundwater and surface water contamination, emanating from
    Grantor’s pipeline facility located adjacent to the Property was
    discovered in the early 1990s. Grantor has been assessing and
    remediating such contamination as required by the State of Georgia
    Environmental Protection Division (“EPD”) and has assumed and
    maintains full responsibility for performing the investigation,
    3
    remediation and monitoring of such petroleum contamination in
    accordance with applicable law and the requirements of the EPD;
    provided, however, groundwater contamination in the deep aquifer
    remains and will continue to be monitored by Grantor as required by the
    EPD.
    Exhibit C also placed the following four limitations on the use of the property: (1)
    no use of the groundwater for any purpose whatsoever; (2) an easement reserved by
    Colonial for access and maintenance of the monitoring well on the property; (3) a
    right of first refusal for Colonial to reacquire the property in the event the grantee
    received an offer on the property; and (4) reservation of a 25-foot riparian buffer
    easement as to Hopkins Creek and the Alcovy River.1 The certificate of title included
    reference to the easement and restrictions as identified in Exhibit C.
    The property was later rezoned for residential development, and Black Hawk
    Ranch sold the property to BBC Partners, LLC (“BBC Partners”). Exhibit C was
    omitted from the chain of title for this sale. Old Republic issued the title insurance
    policy, which covered loss or damage sustained or incurred by reason of, inter alia,
    “[a]ny defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title” or “[u]nmarketability of the title.”
    The policy also listed numerous exclusions, including for defects “resulting in no loss
    1
    It is undisputed that Colonial never exercised its right of first refusal.
    4
    or damage to the insured claimant.” Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 337 Ga. App.
    at 640.
    In 2006, BBC Partners purchased the adjacent property, and, again, Exhibit C
    was not included in the chain of title at closing. Id. Old Republic also issued a policy
    insuring title in connection with the loan for this purchase. Id.
    In 2008, RM Kids purchased the BBC Partners’s loan from a lender, and
    learned of Exhibit C shortly thereafter. When BBC Partners subsequently defaulted
    on the loan in 2012, RM Kids purchased the property in foreclosure. Following
    unsuccessful attempts to have Old Republic address whether the omission of Exhibit
    C was a title defect triggering coverage under the title insurance policy, RM Kids
    filed the instant suit, alleging, as is relevant to this appeal, breach of contract.
    The case proceeded to trial and a jury found in favor of RM Kids. Old Republic
    appealed, and we reversed in part, and remanded the case for a new trial. See Old
    Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 337 Ga. App. at 644 (1).
    A second trial was held in 2018.2 The title agent for Old Republic admitted in
    his testimony that Exhibit C should have been included in the coverage exceptions,
    2
    By the time of the second trial, RM Kids had defaulted on a loan for which
    the property was collateral, and the loan had gone into foreclosure. As a result, RM
    Kids no longer owns the property.
    5
    but was erroneously omitted. Both sides submitted expert testimony as to the value
    of the property with and without the restrictions imposed in Exhibit C. At the close
    of the RM Kids’s case and again at the close of all the evidence, Old Republic moved
    for a directed verdict, arguing that the alleged loss was not covered by the title
    insurance policy and that RM Kids had not established damages. The trial court
    denied both motions. The jury again found in favor of RM Kids, and awarded
    damages in the amount of $4.2 million. This appeal followed.
    In its sole enumeration of error, Old Republic argues that the trial court erred
    in denying its motion for directed verdict because the alleged loss at issue was not a
    title defect, and thus it was not covered by the policy. It further contends that RM
    Kids has suffered no damages apart from the stigma associated with the earlier
    petroleum spill, which would not be covered under the policy because it is unrelated
    to transferability of title or the ability to develop the property. We disagree with both
    arguments and address each in turn.
    1. Whether the omission of Exhibit C triggered coverage under the policy
    We begin with Old Republic’s claim that there was no defect in title that would
    have triggered coverage under the policy.
    6
    “A contract of title insurance is an agreement whereby the insurer, for a
    valuable consideration, agrees to indemnify the assured in a specified amount against
    loss through defects of title to real estate, wherein the latter has an interest, either as
    purchaser or otherwise[.]” Beaullieu v. Atlanta Title & Trust Co., 
    60 Ga. App. 400
    ,
    404 (4 SE2d 78) (1939); see also OCGA § 33-7-8 (2018). “Typically, title insurance
    protects a purchaser or mortgagee against defects in or encumbrances on title which
    are in existence at the time the insured takes his title.” (Citation omitted.) Chicago
    Title Ins. Co. v. C&S Nat. Bank, 821 FSupp 1492, 1494 (II) (N.D. Ga. 1993); see also
    Couch on Insurance § 159:5 (3d ed. 2019). Title insurance, like other types of
    insurance policies, are contracts, the construction and interpretation of which involve
    questions of law for the court. Geiger v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 
    305 Ga. App. 399
    , 400 (1) (a) (699 SE2d 571) (2010).
    [T]he parties to an insurance policy are bound by its plain and
    unambiguous terms. Thus, when faced with a conflict over coverage, a
    trial court must first determine, as a matter of law, whether the relevant
    policy language is ambiguous. A policy which is susceptible to two
    reasonable meanings is not ambiguous if the trial court can resolve the
    conflicting interpretations by applying the rules of contract construction.
    We consider the policy as a whole, to give effect to each provision, and
    to interpret each provision to harmonize with each other. Any
    ambiguities in the contract are strictly construed against the insurer and
    7
    insurance contracts are to be read in accordance with the reasonable
    expectations of the insured where possible. A word or phrase is
    ambiguous when it is of uncertain meaning and may be fairly understood
    in more ways than one.
    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 400-401 (1) (a).
    In determining whether the policy covered the omission of Exhibit C here, we
    first look to the text of the policy, giving words their “usual and common” meaning.
    Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 
    298 Ga. 716
    , 719 (784 SE2d 422) (2016);
    see also OCGA § 13-2-2 (2). We also read the policy “as a layman would read it and
    not as it might be analyzed by an insurance expert or an attorney.” (Citation omitted.)
    Smith, 298 Ga. at 719. Importantly, “exceptions and exclusions to coverage must be
    narrowly and strictly construed against the insurer and forgivingly construed in favor
    of the insured to afford coverage.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Auto-Owners
    Ins. Co. v. Neisler, 
    334 Ga. App. 284
    , 287 (1) (779 SE2d 55) (2015). Moreover, “an
    insurer seeking to defeat a claim based on a policy exclusion has the burden of
    proving that the exclusion is applicable[.]” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dolan
    v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 
    333 Ga. App. 601
    , 604 (773 SE2d 789) (2015).
    Given our case law, the rules of contract interpretation, and our standard of
    review, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the restrictions and easements on the
    8
    property were not “defects” or “encumbrances” in the title. To the extent that these
    terms are ambiguous because they are not defined in the policy, we turn to our rules
    of contract interpretation.
    Here, reading the policy using ordinary language, coverage extended to “any
    defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title” and “unmarketability of the title.”
    Generally, an easement is an “encumbrance” that is a defect on the title. See
    Beaullieu, 60 Ga. App. at 404; see also Couch on Insurance § 159:32 (3d ed. 2019).
    Moreover, encumbrances are defects that are separate and distinct from
    unmarketability because the policy uses both “defect in or lien or encumbrance” and
    “[m]arketability of the title,” as alternate methods to trigger coverage. To consider
    marketability the same as an encumbrance would make the language superfluous. See
    Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Greenlands Realty, LLC, 58 FSupp2d 370, 382 (III) (A)
    (1) (D.N.J. 1999); see also Couch on Insurance § 159:5 (3d ed. 2019). Indeed, as Old
    Republic’s counsel acknowledged in its reply brief and at oral argument before this
    Court, an easement can be a title defect.
    Moreover, as we explained in our prior opinion, where the facts of the case
    raise a question of coverage, the policy is ambiguous, and the decision rests with the
    jury. See Old Republic Title Ins. Co., 337 Ga. App. at 649 (5) & n.35. Thus, any
    9
    ambiguity in the language and definition of “defect” or “encumbrance” was for the
    jury to resolve. Here, RM Kids submitted expert testimony of a real estate attorney
    who opined that easements and encumbrances on a property were title defects and if
    not listed on the title insurance policy would be covered. He further testified that
    Exhibit C was, in fact, a title defect. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to
    conclude that the restrictions and easements were title defects and were covered by
    the policy.3
    Old Republic’s reliance on Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Investguard,
    Ltd., 
    215 Ga. App. 121
     (449 SE2d 681) (1994), does not alter our analysis. In that
    case, the property was located in a flood plain, and the purchaser argued that this
    defect rendered its title to the property unmarketable. Id. at 121. This Court held that
    3
    Admittedly, RM Kids knew of the defect when it purchased the property at
    the foreclosure. But that does not preclude recovery under the policy. The parties
    agreed that RM Kids did not have knowledge of Exhibit C at the time it purchased the
    loan, and Old Republic stipulated that it was not arguing notice. Additionally, RM
    Kids would not be deemed to have constructive knowledge of the easements
    contained in Exhibit C at the time it acquired the loan because it received a copy of
    the security deed and assignment of security interests that omitted that exhibit rather
    than a copy of the limited warranty deed. Compare Security Union Title Ins. Co. v.
    RC Acres, Inc., 
    269 Ga. App. 359
    , 361 (1) (604 SE2d 547) (2004) (“When an
    easement is properly recorded of public record, the world has constructive notice of
    such easement whether or not they have actual notice.”). By the time RM Kids
    learned of the omitted exhibit, it already owned the loan and had no recourse until the
    foreclosure sale in 2012.
    10
    defects in the physical condition of property, such as its location in a flood plain, do
    not constitute a title defect. Id. at 123 (1). But the instant case is distinguishable. First,
    the alleged defect in Investguard was not omitted from the chain of title as it was
    here. Additionally, an easement is an “encumbrance” on the property and not merely
    a “physical defect.” Moreover, in the instant case, RM Kids has not invoked the
    coverage provision regarding unmarketability of title; rather, the claim is that the
    property is subject to these undisclosed encumbrances that rendered the title
    defective.
    Old Republic’s argument conflates the concepts of marketability of title and
    economic marketability.
    While title “defect” and title “marketability” are both used to describe
    the peril against which title insurance offers protection, it is important
    to understand that only that decreased marketability which stems from
    the condition of title is within title insurance. The fact that a given
    property suffers from “economic” lack of marketability, which relates
    to physical conditions affecting the use of the property or other nontitle
    matters, is not relevant to title insurance coverage. In essence, defects
    which merely diminish the value of the property, as opposed to defects
    which adversely affect a clear title to the property, will not render title
    unmarketable within the meaning and coverage of a policy insuring
    against unmarketable title. This is often expressed by the principle that
    11
    one can hold perfect title to land that is valueless and one can have
    “marketable title” to land while the land itself is unmarketable.
    (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Couch on Insurance § 159:7 (3d ed. 2019). Because
    the basis of RM Kids’s claim was not marketability of title, Old Republic’s argument
    that the property could still be bought and sold is misplaced. This was not a case
    involving a simple defect in the physical condition of the property; it was an
    encumbrance on the property in the form of a restriction on use and the existence of
    easements, which were omitted from the chain of title and which, as Old Republic
    acknowledged, can be title defects. In any event, we note that the measure of damages
    per the terms of the contract is the difference between the value of the land with and
    without the defect. We fail to see how the economic marketability of the land as
    encumbered with these defects in title would not be a factor to consider in
    determining value.
    The real crux of Old Republic’s claim is that the alleged defect resulted in no
    damages and, therefore, is expressly excluded from coverage by the policy. But that
    is a separate and distinct question from whether the defect triggered coverage. Our
    analysis is dictated by the procedural posture of this case and by our standard of
    review following the denial of a motion for directed verdict. In this posture, we
    12
    cannot say as a matter of law that the encumbrances in Exhibit C were not title
    defects. Rather, on this record, the jury was authorized to find that the easements and
    use restrictions constituted title defects that would trigger coverage under the policy.
    2. Damages
    Having concluded that the restrictions placed on the property under Exhibit C
    were defects in title, we next turn to whether RM Kids has proved its damages and
    whether Old Republic met its burden to show the exclusion applied. With regard to
    the application of a policy exclusion, we must narrowly and strictly construe the
    exclusion against Old Republic and in favor of coverage. Neisler, 334 Ga. App. at
    287 (1). As to whether RM Kids sufficiently established its damages, we are mindful
    of our “any evidence” standard of review, and our review of the record demonstrates
    that there was evidence from which a jury could find damages.
    Under the terms of the policy, damages are measured by “the difference
    between the value of the insured estate or interest as insured and the value of the
    insured estate or interest subject to the defect, lien or encumbrance insured against
    by this policy.”
    To support its claim of damages, RM Kids submitted an appraisal showing the
    value of the property with and without Exhibit C. According to its appraiser, the value
    13
    of the property without Exhibit C was $6 million.4 He explained that the best use of
    the property without the restrictions was to develop a subdivision with about 336
    homes. When he included the easements and restrictions listed in Exhibit C, the value
    of the property decreased to $680,000 and was best suited for use as four to six large
    estate lots. He explained that notice of the contamination, as well as the restrictions
    on groundwater use and the easements were all viewed negatively and would
    decrease the property’s value. As part of the appraisal, the expert spoke with brokers,
    lenders, and agents and each one stated that the restrictions contained in Exhibit C
    would affect the ability to develop the land as well as to obtain a loan for any
    development. He opined that a home buyer was unlikely to “overlook” the restrictions
    and would simply purchase a competing property instead.
    RM Kids’ owner testified that he would not have purchased the loan had he
    known about Exhibit C, that BBC Partners defaulted on the loan after RM Kids
    purchased it because of the title defect, and that attempts to sell the land after learning
    about Exhibit C were unsuccessful. He further testified that the encumbrances on the
    4
    Consistent with this Court’s conclusion in Old Republic Title Ins. Co, 337 Ga.
    App. at 641 (1), the appraiser based his valuation as of the date RM Kids foreclosed
    on the property. See also Beaullieu, 60 Ga. App. at 404.
    14
    property – the limitations on use of groundwater and the easements – were title
    defects that themselves caused the property to lose value.
    The closing loan officer testified that she likely would not have closed the loan
    had she known about Exhibit C because it would impair the ability to develop the
    property. The closing attorney explained that, when his legal assistant was preparing
    the paperwork to close the loan, she mistakenly removed all of the items listed in
    Exhibit C instead of only removing the right of first refusal;5 thus, Exhibit C was
    omitted from the closing documents in its entirety.
    Old Republic submitted its own expert, who opined that the retrospective
    market value of the property with or without Exhibit C was $1,910,000, and that RM
    Kids’s expert appraiser had overvalued the property. He explained that the value of
    the property decreased due in large part to the economic recession, and that the
    restrictions in Exhibit C would not have impacted the value of the property. In
    reaching this conclusion, he noted that Black Hawk Ranch LLC and the subsequent
    buyer were both aware of Exhibit C at the time of the sales, and there did not appear
    to be any impact on the sale or price of the property at that time.
    5
    The closing attorney further testified that Colonial’s right of first refusal
    contained in Exhibit C had terminated. Therefore, we do not consider whether this
    restriction had any impact on damages.
    15
    It was for the jury to evaluate this testimony and make a determination of
    damages. Although the stigma from the contamination may have played a role in the
    jury’s verdict, we look only to see whether there was “any” evidence to support the
    jury’s findings. Canton Plaza, Inc., 315 Ga. App. at 303-304. Given the specific
    expert testimony that the use restrictions and easements contained in Exhibit C
    reduced the value of the property, there was evidence from which the jury could
    conclude there were damages flowing from the title defects.
    Accordingly, we conclude that the easements and restrictions constituted
    defects in title that are covered by the policy, and there was sufficient evidence to
    establish damages. The trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict.
    Judgment affirmed. Doyle, P. J., and Coomer, J., concur.
    16
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A19A0971

Filed Date: 10/25/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/25/2019