What You Need to Know
- In Price v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the title insurer, but on different grounds than the district court. It held that the title commitment merged into the title policy, and that the policy’s exclusion for “covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and/or servitudes” barred coverage for a neighbor’s court-established 30-foot easement.
- The court rejected the insured’s arguments that the commitment’s narrower plat-based exception controlled, or that the policy should be reformed to match it. Under O.C.G.A. § 33-24-33, a commitment functions as a binder that is not valid beyond issuance of the policy, and the policy expressly stated that it was the entire contract with the insured.
- Discrepancies between a title commitment and the issued policy should be addressed when the policy is issued. An insured who relies on the insurer’s representations instead of reviewing the policy will bear the consequences.
Introduction
In Price v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19840 (11th Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reinforced the hornbook principle that the title commitment for insurance merges into the policy, which controls. It then held that the title policy had unambiguous exclusion that barred coverage for an easement.
The Easement Dispute
Maxie O'Neal Price, III (“Price”) bought property on a peninsula extending into Lake Lanier in Georgia in April 2018, and obtained title insurance from Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”). The property belonging to his neighbors, the Dimos, did not have access to a public road. They used a 10- to12-foot wide gravel road over Price’s road to access their property. In April 2020, the Dimos filed suit alleging they held a 50-foot easement over Taylor Lane, where the gravel road was located. In 2022, the court granted the Dimos a 30-foot easement, which was affirmed on appeal.
The Policy and Coverage Denial
When the Dimos brought suit, Price filed a claim. Chicago Title denied coverage on the grounds that the title policy had an exclusion for coverage for “covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and/or servitudes.”
Price argued the Title Commitment controlled and he satisfied all conditions of the Commitment when the policy should be reformed to reflect coverage. He argued that the earlier Commitment, which had narrower exception for “[a]ll matters affecting captioned property as shown on plat recorded in . . . Plat Book 847, page 119, . . . Hall County records,” should control, or that the policy should be reformed to match the Commitment. After the 30-foot easement was established by the court in the Dimos’ action, Price filed suit against Chicago Title for breach of contract, equitable reformation of the title policy, damages under O.C.G.A 33-4-6 and attorneys’ fees and costs in the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Coverage Action”).
The District Court Decision Based on the Title Commitment
Price and Chicago Title filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the Coverage Action. The District Court rejected Chicago Title’s argument that the Title Policy controlled. However, the District Court still granted summary judgment to Chicago Title based on the exception for coverage for “matters related to . . . “Patton Plat” and “Plat Book 847, page 119”” as the gravel road was located in the specified plat. The Dimos appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit Affirms But Based on the Policy
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed but on different grounds from the District Court. Rather than relying on the Title Commitment, the Court held that the Title Commitment merged into the Title Policy. It then found the policy exclusion for “loss, costs and attorney’s fees and expenses resulting from . . . covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and/or servitudes” controlled and barred coverage. (Citation modified) In doing so, it found that “the merger rule is particularly relevant in title insurance context.” That is, the commitment functions as a binder – a temporary contract of insurance – intended to stand in for an ordinary policy until the formal policy is issued. By statute, no binder is valid beyond the issuance of the policy it relates to, or beyond 90 days from its effective date, whichever is shorter. O.C.G.A. § 33-24-33. In that vein, the Court went on to note that the Policy expressly affirmed that it was the entire contract with the Insured. Finally, the Court, in denying Price’s claim for equitable subrogation, gave some strong and somewhat harsh advice for insureds: “an insured who “instead of examining and looking at the policy himself, thought it proper to rely on the representations of the company and [the agent] . . . has no one to blame for his credulity but himself.” In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit left no doubt that discrepancies between a title commitment and the policy should be addressed when the policy is issued.
Takeaways
The key takeaway in Price is that the Title Policy controls and that buyers, homeowners, and lenders should review their issued policies closely and address any gaps immediately.
This blog was authored by Michael O’Donnell. For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com.
