Court Opinion

ID: 9658237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:52:26.050346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.089099
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C. J.,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. I am fearful, however, that the majority opinion may be misread to imply that a title company may issue title reports and thereby perform the duties of an abstracter, though it has not complied with the laws of the State of Nebraska regulating abstracting. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-501 et seq. (Reissue 1981). Under the facts of this particular case we are only *305concerned with the allegations of the petition, and not whether the case can be proved to the extent that a title company has, in fact, issued a title report. It may very well render itself liable for damages realized by one to whom the report is issued and who relies thereon. Creating such liability, however, does not repeal the statutes of Nebraska regulating abstracting and abstracters, and does not in and of itself authorize title companies to engage in such endeavor without first complying with the requirements of our law. To that extent I believe that the majority is in error in stating that by merely rendering a title report the title insurance company serves as an abstracter of title. Nevertheless, it may still be liable in damages even though it violates the laws of the State of Nebraska pertaining to abstracters.