HAWAII, Feb. 4 – The Supreme Court of Hawaii has ruled that a title insurer’s defense of its insured in underlying action to quiet title does not shield that insurer from bad faith exposure, and that questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of such action, as opposed to settling the underlying claim which appeared to be meritorious, precluded summary judgment in favor of the title insurer.
In Anastasi v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., the Court affirmed an intermediate appeals court ruling that a summary judgment in favor of Fidelity National should be reversed, and the case remanded to trial for exploration of whether the title insurer should have paid to settle the underlying action to quiet title against its insured, Anastasi, earlier, as opposed to continuing to litigate. There was evidence that a warranty deed upon which Anastasi issued a mortgage to the borrower was falsified, and the true owners of the property would prevail in the underlying suit against Anastasi and the mortgagee.
The Court found there were questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of Fidelity National’s continuing the defense of its insured in the underlying case after learning the deed upon which Anastatia issued the mortgage was forged. Justice Paula Nakayama wrote for the court:
“If insurance companies were held to be acting reasonably as a matter of law any time they filed or defended lawsuits under a contractual right to pursue litigation, frivolous lawsuits could be used to unfairly delay payments to insureds for years…
The opinion also contains an excellent discussion of an ongoing discovery dispute regarding whether documents prepared by Fidelity’s in house legal department during the claims investigation were protected by attorney client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. The Court remanded that issue to the trial court as well, directing it to make a determination whether the documents in question were prepared “because of” litigation or the threat of litigation, or whether they would have been prepared regardless.
Anastasi v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (HI 2016)(Nakayama, J.)