New York Appellate Court Affirms Decision Granting Title Insurer Summary Judgment

New York's Second Department Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial court's decision granting a title insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the insureds' claim regarding a driveway encroachment was specifically excepted by the policy.  See Pierot v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 159 N.Y.S.3d 729 (App. Div. 2022).  In 2001, Plaintiffs purchased a property and received a title insurance policy from the defendant title insurance company.  The driveway on the property provides access to Elizabeth Street, a private road to the east of the property, and the property also abuts Healy Avenue, a public road to the west.  In 2011, a nonparty purchased the lot to the north of the property, and a dispute arose because Plaintiffs' driveway encroached upon the neighbors' property.  Plaintiffs filed a claim with the title insurer, who denied coverage based on a policy exception that stated "[n]o title is insured in and to so much of the driveway that encroaches the north as shown on the survey . . ."  Plaintiffs then brought this action against the title insurer.  The trial court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Court affirmed.  First, the Court found that the policy language controls, and that the title insurer "met its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs' claim fell within an exception to coverage under the policy."  Second, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' claims regarding access, finding that "plaintiffs have a legal right of access to the property because it abuts a public street" (i.e., Healy Avenue).  Accordingly, the Court affirmed that there was no coverage under the policy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.