The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a trial court’s order granting a title insurance company summary judgment based on a defect that a survey of the premises would have shown.  See Kreider v. Correia, 2018 WL 359285 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2018).  In the case, the plaintiff insured purchased a property after the lender had obtained it via a foreclosure (the “Property”).  Before plaintiff purchased it, the real estate agent informed him that the Property included a two-car garage and some other surrounding land.  However, the garage and surrounding land were actually part of a separate parcel that, although also owned by the borrowers, was not encumbered by the foreclosed mortgage (the “Parcel”).  Accordingly, the Parcel was not part of the foreclosure and not owned by the lender.  After purchasing the Property, a neighbor informed plaintiff that the Property did not include the garage or the surrounding land.  Plaintiff then had a survey conducted and also discovered that there was a twenty-two foot overlap between the Parcel and the Property.  Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against the title insurance company, among others, alleging breach of contract based on these title issues.  The title insurance company then moved for summary judgment.  The trial court granted the motion, finding that “[t]he title insurance policy expressly excludes ‘Any encroachments, easements, measurements, variations in area or content, party walls or other. facts which a correct survey of the premises would show.’”  On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed.  It held that “the policy expressly excludes defects that a survey would have shown,” including the boundary issues alleged here.  As such, it dismissed the claim against the title insurance company.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com.