Court Opinion

ID: 9602439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:55:01.066387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:03.572151
License: Public Domain

*171Wright, C.J.
(dissenting) — I dissent in part from the views of the majority. I take the view the words "Except right of way for existing roads" means exactly what it says. The majority says correctly that in case of an ambiguity the policy of title insurance (as with any insurance policy) shall be construed in favor of the insured. I do not agree, however, that any ambiguity exists, except possibly as to the approximately 200 feet beyond the existing road. As to that 200 feet, I am willing to accept the view of the majority.
As to the distance upon which a road actually existed, that is clearly within the exception.
The term "right-of-way" has several meanings in different contexts. The meaning involved here refers to a strip or tract of land within the confines of which some facility such as a road, highway, railroad, pipe line, electric transmission line or other similar thing is located. The right-of-way is generally greater in width than the part actually used for the facility.
The legislature has long recognized the rights-of-way for county roads. Laws of 1937, ch. 187, § 14 provided the right-of-way for any county road should be 30 feet on each side of the center line of the roadway unless the board of county commissioners should specifically designate a different width. The section also provided for additional width as needed for cuts and fills. That section has been substantially carried into the present laws as RCW 36.86.010, which reads as follows:
From and after April 1, 1937, the width of thirty feet on each side of the center line of county roads, exclusive of such additional width as may be required for cuts and fills, is the necessary and proper right-of-way width for county roads, unless the board of county commissioners, shall, in any instance, adopt and designate a different width. This shall not be construed to require the acquisition of increased right-of-way for any county road already established and the right-of-way for which has been secured.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traveled portion of few county roads is 60 feet in width. The legisla*172tive intent is plain that the right-of-way shall be greater in width than the actual road.
There are comparatively few judicial definitions of the term "right-of-way" in the context here relevant. One case in which the term is defined is St. Louis, K.C. & C. R.R. v. Wabash R.R., 217 U.S. 247, 253, 54 L. Ed. 752, 30 S. Ct. 510 (1910) wherein it is said:
"The ordinary signification of the term 'right of way,' when used to describe land which a railroad corporation owns or is entitled to use for railroad purposes, is the entire strip or tract it owns or is entitled to use for this purpose, and not any specific or limited part thereof upon which its main track or other specified improvements are located. Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1, 44, 45, 46; Territory of New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 181-2; 174 U. S. 545, 546; Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. People, 98 Illinois, 350, 356-7; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Middlecoff, 150 Illinois, 27, 37 N. E. Rep. 660, 663; Pfaff v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 108 Indiana, 144, 148, 9 N. E. Rep. 93, 95.
Other cases to the same effect include Deakyne v. Commissioners of Lewes, 329 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Del. 1971); Wilson v. Pacific Elec. Ry., 176 Cal. 248, 168 P. 128 (1917); Moakley v. Los Angeles Pac. Ry., 139 Cal. App. 421, 34 P.2d 218 (1934); Tormaschy v. Hjelle, 210 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1973); Biles v. Tacoma, O. & G.H. Ry., 5 Wash. 509, 32 P. 211 (1893). In the last mentioned case a right-of-way 400 feet in width was reserved for railroad purposes.
In the instant case, the right-of-way granted by judicial decree was 40 feet in width. Given what I consider to be the appropriate definition of right-of-way, it was, and is, the right-of-way for an existing road. Thus, by clear and unambiguous language, this entire right-of-way is excepted from the coverage of the policy of title insurance. I would, therefore, reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court insofar as the same relates to the existing road.
Brachtenbach and Dolliver, JJ., concur with Wright, C.J.