FIRST COMMERCE REALTY INVESTORS, APPELLANT,
v.
PENINSULAR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff could not show a loss entitling it to indemnification under the title insurance policy because the property's value exceeded the mortgage amount.
[1] A title insurance policy indemnifies against loss or damages, requiring the insured to demonstrate an actual financial loss to recover.
[2] A bid at a foreclosure sale equal to the full amount of the judgment extinguishes the debt and satisfies the mortgage, precluding a claim for loss under a title insurance…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Commerce, assignee of a mortgage, received a title insurance policy from Peninsular Title. The mortgagor defaulted, and First Commerce was the s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Title Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant First Commerce Realty Investors is a real estate investment trust, the assignee of a $1,600,000 mortgage. A mortgagee’s title insurance policy was issued by appellee Peninsular Title Insurance Company. The title insurance issued by Peninsular Title was in the maximum sum of $1,600,000 and the policy’s description of the property included, as did the mortgage, five lots to which the mortgagor did not have title. When the mortgagor defaulted on the payments, a final judgment of foreclo sure was sought and obtained. The judgment provided a total sum of $1,567,518.48 was owing to First Commerce, including principal, interest, costs and attorney fees. First Commerce was the only bidder at the foreclosure sale and bid the exact amount of the judgment, $1,567,518.48. Its bid extinguished the debt and satisfied the mortgage. First Commerce filed suit against Peninsular Title, contending the title insurance policy covered its alleged loss due to the defect in title. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the title insurer. We affirm.
Peninsular Title insured First Commerce against loss or damages in an amount not to exceed $1,600,000 if title to the estate was otherwise than as stated. At no time prior to the entry of summary judgment was any evidence presented relating to the value of the five lots.
After judgment was entered favoring Peninsular Title, First Commerce moved for rehearing and attached an affidavit stating that the value of the property, including the five lots, was $1,823,500, while the diminished value was $1,731,500. The value of the property at the time First Commerce acquired it, according to First Commerce’s own evidence, was in excess of both the amount of the mortgage and the maximum insured interest. As a result, First Commerce can show no loss which entitles it to indemnification. The dominant characteristic of insurance is the granting of indemnity, or security against, loss for a stipulated consideration. Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (1934).
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cmei, Inc. v. Am. Title Ins. Co., 447 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…urance Company v. Braverman, 163 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Goode v. Federal Title and Insurance Corp., 162 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). . Our conclusion is consistent with First Commerce Realty Investors v. Penisular Title Insurance Company, 355 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), but is contrary to Title Insurance Company of Richmond v. Industrial Bank, 156 Va. 322, 157 S.E. 710 (1931).…
Authorities Cited
- Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670 (Fla. 1934)