INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Did title policy cover the use of gates?
In August 2016, Roger and Therese Hutchinson purchased rural property in Madison County, Montana, which included an easement for access via a private road, commonly known as Deer Trail. They obtained a title policy from Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
In the several years that followed, disputes arose between the Hutchinsons and Nugget Creek Ranch, the owner of the adjoining property, regarding the existence and use of gates along Deer Trail. In September 2020, four years after their purchase, the Hutchinsons filed a complaint in the district court against Nugget Creek and its member, Mark Miller (the underlying action). The Hutchinsons alleged that Nugget Creek had denied them the ability to install electric openers on three gates running across the easement, refused to install cattle guards, and thus denied the Hutchinsons the right “to control the types of gates used for ingress and egress by way of the easement.”
Nugget Creek answered, asserting counterclaims for declaratory judgment, trespass, nuisance, negligence, slander and defamation, vexatious litigation, and reverse adverse possession. The claim for reverse adverse possession was dismissed.
The Hutchinsons requested that Old Republic defend them against Nugget Creek’s counterclaims, but Old Republic denied coverage, citing exclusions for disputes that arose from the easement and for actions taken by the insured after the policy date.
The Hutchinsons filed suit against Old Republic for breach of contract and unfair claim settlement practices. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Old Republic, finding no duty to defend because the policy excluded coverage for disputes related to the easement and for actions that occurred after the policy date.
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Old Republic had no duty to defend the Hutchinsons because the policy explicitly excluded coverage for disputes that arose from the easement and for actions taken by the insured after the policy date. The court also noted that the policy did not cover tort claims or actions that occurred after the policy’s effective date. As a consequence, the court concluded that Old Republic unequivocally demonstrated a lack of coverage under the policy.
On March 14, 2020, John Holt, vice president and claims manager for Old Republic, wrote a letter to the Hutchinsons that affirmed denial of the insurer’s refusal to entertain the claim.
In December 2022, the Hutchinsons filed suit against Old Republic and Holt, asserting claims for breach of contract and unfair claim settlement practices arising from Old Republic’s denial of defense. The appellees answered and in counterclaim requested a declaration that there was no duty to defend the Hutchinsons under the policy.
The underlying action was settled in June 2023 with the Hutchinsons accepting a restated grant of easement over the existing roadway, agreeing to pay $25,000 to Nugget Creek, and promising not to interfere with Nugget Creek’s use of gates on the easement.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. Reasoning that the material facts were not in dispute, the district court denied the Hutchinsons’ motion and granted Old Republic’s motion. The district court determined that Old Republic did not have a duty to defend in the underlying action because the policy clearly excepted disputes arising from the easement and also excluded coverage for issues and conduct that occurred after the policy’s effective date. The Hutchinsons appealed.
On appeal, the Hutchinsons argued that the title policy provided coverage against allegations that the insured had interfered with the property rights of others. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana disagreed.
Hutchinson v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company—Supreme Court of the State of Montana—No DA-24-0127—February 11, 2025.
