In an action against Title Insurance Company, DNZ’s Commercial Litigation team, led by Partner Jonathan B. Nelson, successfully argued a motion for summary judgment before a Federal Court in the Northern District of New York. The Court found that our client, the Title Insurance Company, had no duty to defend nor indemnify the Insured with regard to the underlying complaint. Access additional details by following the “Read More” link below

In an action against Title Insurance Company, DNZ’s Commercial Litigation team, led by Partner Jonathan B. Nelson, successfully argued before a Federal Court in the Northern District of New York that exclusion 3(a) applied to the underlying complaint and relieved the Title Insurance Company of a duty to defend or indemnify. The policy contains an exclusion for “[d]efects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant.” Insurance Policy, at ¶ 3. The allegations in the underlying complaint accuse the Insured of knowingly participating in a scheme that fraudulently transferred title to the property. The action sought to set aside the deed due to a defect created in part by the conduct of the Insured.  The Court found that the Title Insurance Company had no duty to defend nor indemnify the Insured with regard to the underlying complaint. Read the full court decision below.

Decision and Order