Caseflicks

California Court of Appeal • 1991

Lick Mill Creek Apartments v. Chicago Title Insurance

231 Cal. App. 3d 1654 | 283 Cal. Rptr. 231 | 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5509 | 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 787

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that title insurance protects title, not the physical condition or economic value of contaminated land; absent an actual title defect, lien, or encumbrance, cleanup costs are not covered.

Background

Lick Mill Creek Apartments and Prometheus Development Company bought three lots in Santa Clara County from a prior owner. Earlier industrial users had operated warehouses and chemical-processing facilities there, using underground tanks, pumps, and pipelines. Hazardous substances contaminated the soil, subsoil, and groundwater. Before plaintiffs bought the land, state health authorities had ordered the prior owner to remediate the contamination, but it did not do so.

Plaintiffs obtained ALTA owner’s title insurance policies from Chicago Title Insurance Company and First American Title Insurance Company. The insurers’ pre-policy survey and inspection identified pipes, tanks, pumps, and other improvements, and government agencies maintained records disclosing contamination. After purchasing the lots, plaintiffs paid for cleanup to mitigate their damages and avoid government-mandated compliance costs. They sought indemnity under the title policies, but the insurers denied coverage.

Plaintiffs sued. The trial court sustained the insurers’ demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend and entered a dismissal judgment, concluding that the policies did not cover hazardous-substance removal costs. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether contamination that reduces the value or usefulness of land makes its title “unmarketable” under an ALTA title insurance policy.

Holding

No. Hazardous contamination may impair the market value or use of the land, but it does not make title to the land unmarketable.

Reasoning

Title insurance protects against specified risks affecting title, not against every condition that reduces a parcel’s economic value. The policies insured against, among other matters, “unmarketability of such title.” That language concerns the legal quality of ownership, rather than the physical state or commercial desirability of the land.

California authority distinguishes marketability of title from marketability of land. A marketable title is one sufficiently free of legal defects or reasonable doubt that a prudent purchaser would accept it. Although a title flaw may affect market value, the inquiry remains whether a defect affects the owner’s legally recognized rights in the property.

Under Hocking v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., an owner can possess marketable fee simple title to land that is unusable or worth less than expected. Here, the contamination affected the land’s physical condition and therefore its value and potential use; it did not cast doubt on plaintiffs’ ownership or their legal estate. The court therefore rejected plaintiffs’ effort to treat economic injury as unmarketability of title.

The fact that plaintiffs bought broader ALTA policies rather than standard CLTA policies did not change the result. ALTA policies may cover additional off-record title risks, but their expanded scope does not convert physical conditions of land into defects in title. The phrase “unmarketability of title” retained its established meaning.

Issue #2

Whether the existing hazardous substances, and the possibility that cleanup liability or a future cleanup lien could arise, constituted a covered “defect in or lien or encumbrance on” title.

Holding

No. Contamination itself is not a title encumbrance, and an unasserted possibility of future cleanup liability or a future lien is not a present covered lien or encumbrance.

Reasoning

California law defines encumbrances as taxes, assessments, and liens on real property. More generally, the authorities treat an encumbrance as a third party’s right or interest in the land—such as a lien, easement, or restrictive covenant—not as an unfavorable physical condition of the property.

Plaintiffs argued that contamination burdened title because an owner may be legally responsible for cleanup and because environmental statutes can authorize a lien for government cleanup expenses. But no cleanup lien had been recorded or asserted when the policies issued. The mere possibility that the government might later impose a lien did not create a present defect, lien, or encumbrance on title.

The court followed decisions holding that hazardous substances may reduce property value without affecting title. The legal obligation to remediate contamination and the possibility of future governmental action concern the property’s condition and potential financial consequences, not an existing third-party proprietary interest that burdens title.

Plaintiffs’ reliance on broad descriptions of an encumbrance did not help because those descriptions still required a right or interest held by a third party. No third party held such an interest in plaintiffs’ property merely because contamination existed.

Issue #3

Whether policy exclusions or the absence of an environmental exclusion in two policies created coverage or a reasonable expectation that cleanup costs would be covered.

Holding

No. The court did not need to decide the exclusions’ application because the insuring clauses provided no coverage in the first place, and the policies’ language did not reasonably support an expectation of coverage for cleanup costs.

Reasoning

Policies 1 and 3 contained exclusions for governmental regulation and police-power rights, while policy 2 also contained an express environmental-protection exclusion. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether the exclusions in policies 1 and 3 applied because plaintiffs had not established coverage under the identical insuring clauses of any policy.

The reasonable-expectations doctrine applies when policy language is ambiguous. The court found no ambiguity: the policies insured title-related risks, and none of their insuring provisions covered losses arising solely from the land’s physical contamination. A specific environmental exclusion in one policy could not create coverage under the unambiguous affirmative coverage grants of the other two policies.