Lurie v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., LLC

558 S.W.3d 583 (2018)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lurie v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals
558 S.W.3d 583 (2018)

JC

Facts

Robert Lurie (plaintiff) bought a home in 1998 and also bought a title insurance policy from Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., LLC (Commonwealth) (defendant). The title insurance was designed to protect Lurie from any liens, encumbrances, or defects of title and would pay costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses incurred in defense of the title. In 2003, Lurie’s neighbor, Michael Polinsky, replaced the fence between his and Lurie’s homes, and Lurie believed that the fence encroached onto Lurie’s property. In July 2008, Lurie filed suit against Polinsky, which Lurie dismissed with prejudice in December 2009. In December 2010, Lurie filed a second suit against Polinsky, which Lurie again dismissed with prejudice in June 2012. At that time, Lurie and Polinsky settled the dispute. Lurie had incurred $68,740.25 in attorney’s fees in the two suits. Lurie then filed suit against Commonwealth in 2015, alleging breach of the insurance contract, unjust enrichment, and vexatious refusal to pay. After filing the suit, Lurie filed a claim for the attorney’s fees Lurie had paid. In July 2016, Commonwealth denied the claims because Lurie had failed to timely notify Commonwealth of the lawsuits. The relevant portion of the policy required Lurie to notify Commonwealth of any claims that might cause loss or damage for which Commonwealth could be liable. Another provision required Lurie to notify Commonwealth promptly of any related litigation in writing. Lurie had not notified Commonwealth of these matters until Lurie filed the 2015 lawsuit. The matter proceeded to trial, the trial court granted summary judgment for Commonwealth, and Lurie appealed. Lurie argued that he had notified Commonwealth and that Commonwealth should not be entitled to summary judgment because Commonwealth had not established actual prejudice from Lurie’s failure to notify them.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership