Opinion ID: 856802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Arrow (Title Agency)

Text: In addition to the judgment-on-the-pleadings motions discussed above, the district court granted summary judgment to Arrow on two remaining claims: negligent misrepresentation and 18 No. 12-3526 Milner, et al. v. Biggs, et al. negligence. R. 141 (Op. & Order at 24–25) (Page ID #2085–86). The Milners appeal both. The district court granted summary judgment on the negligent-misrepresentation claim because it found that Arrow had never made a representation to the Milners—indeed, both Milners conceded as much—that its deed was correct. Id. at 24 (Page ID #2085). The district court granted summary judgment on the negligence claim because it found no evidence that Arrow had acted negligently when it prepared a title based on the order for title insurance. Id. at 25 (Page ID #2086). Moreover, even if Arrow had acted negligently, the district court found no evidence of damages; the Milners had never attempted to correct the inaccurate deed and had refused Arrow’s offer to correct the deed free of cost. Id.; see R. 146-2 (Quitclaim Offer Letter) (Page ID #2157–58). The Milners offer two arguments on appeal. First, they argue that Arrow’s filing a deed with the county clerk constitutes a representation. Appellants’ Br. at 29. Second, the Milners argue that a plaintiff is not required to show damages as part of a successful OCSPA action. Id. With respect to the Milners’ second argument, they confuse their OCSPA claim, which we have already discussed, with a negligence action, for which proof of damages is a required element. Because the only damages that the Milners allege is an incorrect title, and because they do not contest that they have been provided a clean title but have refused to file it, see R. 146-2 (Quitclaim Offer Letter) (Page ID #2157–58), the Milners cannot establish injury from Arrow’s purported negligence, and thus they cannot prevail on their negligence claim. As to the negligent-misrepresentation claim, even if we were to accept that filing a deed with a county clerk could constitute a misrepresentation, other elements of a successful claim are 19 No. 12-3526 Milner, et al. v. Biggs, et al. nonetheless missing. In particular, Arrow’s purported misrepresentation did not stem from a negligent performance of its duties. The Title Order Form is ambiguous as to who is to be listed as the buyer on the title. R. 72-5 (Title Order Form) (Page ID #699). Thereafter, Arrow produced a Title Order Confirmation, which identified only Jason Milner as the buyer. R. 68-3 (Title Order Confirmation). The Milners did not object to the confirmation form. R. 70 (Natasha Milner Dep. at 96) (Page ID #612). The district court was correct to conclude that it was not negligent, as a matter of law, for Arrow to rely on this uncorrected confirmation form in producing a title. Moreover, the Milners cannot demonstrate a pecuniary loss from the mistake; they have refused Arrow’s offer to be made whole. R. 146-2 (Quitclaim Offer Letter) (Page ID #2157–58). Summary judgment therefore was appropriate.