This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Bad Faith
Failure to Defend

Fidelity National Title v. Brian Kyle

Published: Oct. 24, 1998 | Result Date: Sep. 16, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 784021 Bench Verdict –  $0

Judge

David H. Brickner

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jerry A. Hager
(AmeriHome Mortgage Company LLC)


Facts

In 1982, defendant Brian Kyle and his partner William Schuveiller entered into a lease of their property, which they jointly owned, to Paul Hennessey, who ran a tavern. Included in that lease was a right of first refusal, to which all parties agreed. Some years later, Kyle sought to buy out Schuveiller's 50 percent interest. A dispute arose regarding the first refusal language and Schuveiller demanded that, as part of any purchase by Kyle, he be indemnified from any action by Hennessey regarding the lease. Kyle so agreed. As the sale progressed, Hennessey apparently filed a lawsuit two days before close of escrow, and Fidelity National Title missed it when it issued it's policy on March 27, 1998. When Kyle later tendered defense of the Hennessey action to Fidelity National, tender was rejected on the grounds that this constituted a title risk "created, allowed or agreed to by you," and "that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date - unless they appeared in the public records." Fidelity National brought an action against Kyle for declaratory relief and rescission, and Kyle filed a bad faith denial cross-complaint, and requested a jury trial. Kyle thereafter successfully litigated the Hennessey action. At trial, the court bifurcated the case on the coverage and duty to defend issues and held a court trial.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $____________. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $____________.

Damages

The defendant/cross-complainant claimed $200,000

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed. The court found no possibility of coverage and no duty to defend, and dismissed the cross-complaint.


#112528

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390