Court Opinion

ID: 9528293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:29.202008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.007770
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the majority that the language in section 2(a), “CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE, After Acquisition of Title,” does not operate to prevent Stewart Title from terminating its liability under section 9(c): “Payment in full by any person or the voluntary satisfaction or release of the insured mortgage shall terminate all liability of the Company except as provided in Section 2(a) of these Conditions and Stipulations.” Consequently, I agree with the majority that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to Stewart Title on count I. I also concur with the majority that count II, which alleged negligent misrepresentation, was properly dismissed. However, I believe that count II should have been dismissed because the title policy had been terminated by the payoff of the insured loan, not because count II failed to properly state a claim based on Stewart Title’s negligent misrepresentation. While the majority’s holding in this regard is clearly dicta, I write separately because I believe the holding is erroneous and is capable of causing damage by depriving persons utilizing the services of title companies of the use of a possible remedy when the title company fails to do its job. As the majority point out, in Notaro Homes, Inc. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 309 Ill. App. 3d 246 (1999), the appellate court held: “We believe the exception to Moorman [Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (1982),] does apply to cases where a prospective purchaser orders a commitment for title insurance and in reliance thereon enters into a business transaction. When a title insurance company issues a commitment, it is in fact in the business of supplying information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, whether the transaction is the decision to purchase property or the decision to simply purchase the title insurance policy. It owes a duty not to be negligent in providing the information, and, if negligent, the injured party may recover economic damages.” Notaro Homes, Inc. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 309 Ill. App. 3d at 257. The majority do not say that Notaro was wrongly decided. Rather, they find that title commitments made by title insurance companies cannot be considered to be “information.” The majority find that University of Chicago Hospitals v. United Parcel Service, 231 Ill. App. 3d 602 (1992), “is instructive.” I believe that University of Chicago Hospitals is completely inapposite. It makes perfect sense that medical insurers are not in the business of supplying information. Persons purchasing medical insurance are certainly not doing so in an effort to obtain information upon which they can rely. However, persons purchasing title insurance, whether it be in the form of minutes of foreclosure, title commitments or abstracts of title, rely on the title insurer’s search to research the applicable law and the records before issuing the commitment and to provide warnings about areas in which the purchaser might find title surprises. Oak Park Trust & Savings Bank v. Intercounty Title Co. of Illinois, 287 Ill. App. 3d 647, 650 (1997). While I agree that it is not absolutely certain that title insurance companies may be held liable under the theory of negligent misrepresentation (see Notaro Homes, Inc. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 309 Ill. App. 3d at 257; W.E. Erickson Construction, Inc. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 266 Ill. App. 3d 905, 911 (1994)), this court should not come to a contrary conclusion in dicta in the instant case.