Somerset Savings Bank v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
420 Mass. 422, 649 N.E.2d 1123 (1995)
- Written by Patrick Busch, JD
Facts
In 1986, Somerset Savings Bank (plaintiff) agreed to finance a construction project in Revere, Massachusetts. To protect its investment, Somerset Savings purchased title insurance from Chicago Title Insurance Company (defendant). The contract insured against loss or damage resulting from defects in title or unmarketability of title. The contract expressly excluded from coverage any restrictions on the use of the land resulting from a law or governmental regulation. At the time the contract was executed, Chicago Title Insurance advertised that it was familiar with local laws and practices. In 1988, after construction had begun, the city ordered construction halted because the state had not consented to the issuance of a building permit. State law required consent because the property had once been owned by a railroad company. Chicago Title Insurance claimed that Somerset Savings’ losses were not covered by its insurance policy. Somerset Savings filed suit, claiming breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims to Chicago Title Insurance, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed. Somerset Savings appealed to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.