Riordan v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
393 F.Supp.2d 1100 (2005)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
The Riordans (plaintiffs) purchased property in an “in-holding” (property surrounded by federal land) for $225,000 in 1995. The Riordans purchased title insurance from Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. (Lawyers Title Insurance) (defendant), including coverage for lack of a right of access to the property and unmarketability of title. The Riordans later brought suit against the United States, arguing the property was not accessible by automobile and seeking a declaration of a vehicular right of way to the property. Subsequently, in September 2002, the property was appraised for $2.8 million. The Riordans sold the property to the Sandia Pueblo for $1.3 million and a $1.8 million tax deduction for a charitable contribution. The Riordans’ action against the United States was dismissed as moot by stipulation after the sale of the property. After the dismissal of their action against the United States, the Riordans demanded payment from Lawyers Title Insurance under the policy, claiming the lack of vehicular access to the property was a covered cause of loss. The Riordans also claimed the lack of access to the property rendered the property title unmarketable. When their demands were rejected, the Riordans brought suit against Lawyers Title Insurance in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Lawyers Title Insurance moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.