Opinion

Clements v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TITLE INS.

  • 612 So. 2d 1172
  • 1992 WL 371472
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Dec 18, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Shores
On the bench
Maddox, Shores
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

The opinion

Under these facts, I believe Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company, through its agent, Richard Chesnut, had a duty to disclose to the Clementses that there were materialmen who had not been paid (a fact known to Chesnut, who was the agent of Mississippi Valley), and that the policy Chesnut was issuing to the Clementses contained a provision excluding coverage of those claims. I also believe that Chesnut had a duty to inform the Clementses that the policy he was issuing to AmSouth Mortgage Company on behalf of Mississippi Valley did not contain that exclusion.

This Court has traditionally recognized a duty to disclose where one party has some *Page 1177

particular knowledge or experience not shared by the opposite party. Lucas v. Hodges , 589 So.2d 154 (Ala. 1991).

At the closing here, everybody in the room, except the Clementses, knew that there were outstanding debts owed by the seller to subcontractors, and knew that the Clementses would be liable for liens filed against the property after the closing, but failed to tell them that the policy about to be issued would exclude coverage for those very liens. Mississippi Valley and its attorney agent had a duty to disclose those facts. Stafford v. Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Co. , 569 So.2d 720 (Ala. 1990).

HORNSBY, C.J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.