All publications of the American Land Title Association are copyrighted and are reprinted herein by specific permission from:
American Land Title Association (ALTA)
1800 M Street Suite 300 South Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-296-3671 E-Mail: service@alta.org Web: http://www.alta.org
The Docket is a monthly TitleNews Online feature provided by ALTA’s Title Counsel Committee, which reviews significant court rulings and other legal developments, and explains the relevance to the title insurance industry.
March 12, 2026
Michael R. O’Donnell, Of Counsel with the law firm Riker Danzig LLP, provided today’s review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that granted a title insurer’s motion to dismiss based on the survey exception present in the standard title policy. O’Donnell can be reached at modonnell@riker.com.
Citation: Messersmith v. CATIC Title Insurance Company, 2025 WL 3530275 (M.D. Pa. 2025)
In Messersmith v. CATIC Title Insurance Company, 2025 WL 3530275 (M.D. Pa. 2025), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted a title insurer’s motion to dismiss based on the survey exception present in the standard title policy, which precludes coverage for “[a]ny variation in location of lines or dimensions or other matters which any accurate survey would disclose.” Namely, the Court found because the insured opted not to obtain a survey, she was not covered when the house that she was living in was on a neighbor’s property.
Background: Whitney Messersmith (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against CATIC Title Insurance Company after being notified the house she was living in was on her neighbor’s property. Plaintiff filed a title claim with defendant CATIC Title Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “CATIC”) and was told a survey was needed. After the survey was done, however, it revealed that the home was on the neighbor’s property. CATIC then denied the claim as Plaintiff had not obtained a survey prior to closing on the property and the home was not located on the insured property. In that vein, the standard Title Policy has what is commonly known in the industry as the Survey Exception. The Survey Exception precludes coverage for “[a]ny variation in location of lines or dimensions or other matters which any accurate survey would disclose.” To avoid this exception, the insured can obtain a survey and purchase a survey endorsement that insures the accuracy of the survey.
Plaintiff sued CATIC in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. CATIC removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. CATIC then filed a motion to dismiss. Messersmith filed a cross-motion to remand. The Court first addressed the remand motion to confirm jurisdiction and then the motion to dismiss.
Holding: In the remand motion, Plaintiff argues that there was no diversity of citizenship required under 28 U.S.C. 1332 because this matter was a direct action against an insurer and in those actions, the insurer is deemed to have the same citizenship of the insurer. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1)(a). The Court summarily rejected the argument. Relying on Third Circuit precedent, it found a direct action does not exist unless the cause of action is one where the liability to be imposed is one that could be imposed on the insured. That was not the case here.
The Survey Exception Triumphs: As to the merits of the claim, Plaintiff argued that the subject policy’s Covered Risk 31 controlled, which provided coverage for “[t]he residence with the property address shown in Schedule A is not located on the land at the date of the policy.” CATIC argued the survey exception applied as an accurate survey would have shown that the land was not on the insured property. Thus CATIC argued that there was no coverage. Plaintiff countered that argument essentially reading Covered Risk 31 out of the policy.
The Court first noted that the title documents did show the house was located on the neighbor’s property and that meant the house was not on the property covered by the title policy. As such, the Court found the survey exception was applicable. It noted that the exception was designed to “discourage homeowners from neglecting their due diligence when purchasing property - such as foregoing a survey or other matter to validate the purchase - simply because they have obtained a title policy.” An accurate survey would have revealed that the home was on the neighbor’s land and that there was no coverage. The Court then also dismissed Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and negligence claims as Pennsylvania’s “gist of action doctrine prevents purely contractual duty from serving the basis of a tort claim.”
Key Takeaways: This decision is a powerful reminder of the importance of obtaining a survey in any purchase of real estate. The unfortunate circumstances of this case could have been eliminated if the insured had obtained a survey and had a survey endorsement added to the Title Policy. A survey endorsement to a title policy provides coverage for that survey’s accuracy in defining the insured property.
