concluding that a title insurance company was liable for a theft committed by its designated closing attorney even though the attorney was retained to represent the purchaser
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a title insurance company was liable for a theft committed by its designated closing attorney even though the attorney was retained to represent the purchaser
- noting that implied actual authority “may be inferred from the nature or extent of the function to be performed, the general course of conducting the business, or from particular circumstances in the case” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- observing “[n]ormally, insurance purchasers are expected to read their policies” and “ ‘the law may fairly impose upon [them] such restrictions, conditions and limitations as the average insured would ascertain from such reading.’ ”
- looking to the degree of control a title insurer exercises over an approved agent and whether the insurer is in the best position to foresee and prevent malfeasance, notwithstanding the express limits of the agency agreement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARIBALDI, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Shebell’s opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 257 N.J.Super. 33 , 607 A.2d 1327 (1992).
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, O’HERN, and STEIN — 4.
For affirmance — Justices CLIFFORD and GARIBALDI — 2.