Saturday, March 30, 2013

My Claim with Fidelity National Title Got Very Complicated

My saga with Fidelity National Title spanned four very long gruesome years - and it appears that each instance that I have heard of with Fidelity have only one thing in common - their reluctance to open and pay claims.

Emails with this new person attempting to deal with Fidelity continues but other emails I cannot share at this time as her transaction is not complete.

"That sounds really complicated, with the historic part coming to light after the title not being in the sellers name. Plus the easement. What does historic mean, as far as vacant land? And what was the restriction on it for being historic---not being able to build on it?"

"Actually very complicated.  It was about easements that were across other property benefiting mine.  Fidelity included them in my prelim and grant deed.  I verified them with the title officer and he gave me the recorded docs.  One owner said no.  Fidelity agreed with her and opened my claim then during the course of the four year claim Fidelity then decided they were historic and therefore valid so I had no loss but I no longer owned the property.

So “historic” meant that although my seller did not have them in his grant deed it was decided by Fidelity (one of the methods they used to not pay the claim) that they did exist historically in the public records."

Friday, March 29, 2013

More from the New Unhappy Fidelity Customer


Two of the people who have contacted me are still in the middle of what appears to be ordeals also with Fidelity National Title Company or Fidelity National Insurance Company.  As they are still involved I am keeping their names private.  The person who contacted me this morning I am very concerned about because she is having title search issues.

My fear obviously even if she thinks that these issues are resolved - as in my case - they may not be and she will be very sorry in the future to learn that making a claim with Fidelity National Title Insurance Company is a long and painful and in the end worthless process.  Looking back at four years of fighting with them the pittance of money I received barely paid for expenses and maybe about 10 cents an hour.  A total waste of time and money.  So the only thing I can say - is that if she wants "insurance" - well I would never insure a property with Fidelity again - ever. 

"The link you provided got me to your blog, and what a complicated, financial mess they caused. I read reviews on First American Title, who also had some bad reviews, nothing like Fidelity, though. I think those are the only two title companies around here for us to use. If we have to move the escrow, then First American is what we'd be using. I'll keep you posted on events."



"Just give me a week or so when escrow closes, then I will give a final description of what occurred. I believe in putting the bad businesses online so no one else has to go through the misery their former victims suffered. I appreciate your leaving off my name.
One of the Realtors had already suggested transferring the escrow to First American Title, but still trying to work this out."

Another unhappy Fidelity National Title Customer

I am hearing from more people who have also had problems - this person with title searches - or in my case lack of a thorough title search.  Here is here last email:


"Thank you very much for that information. I was not happy with them either on their performance for just title searches and was wondering if anyone else had problems, so I googled reviews. What a horrible experience you had. I hope First American Title could work better. That is who I will use next time." 

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Giving up on the California Department of Insurance


December 11, 2009

K. McMullin
Associate Insurance Compliance Officer
California Department of Insurance

Dear Ms./Mr. McMullin,

                I received your letter dated December 8, 2009 and I certainly understand your position that your regulatory review is separate from the determination of an amount payable on a claim.     This letter is not about the money.  It is about the fact that the actions (and inactions) of Fidelity National Title Company are just not right. 

Fidelity National Title using PGP Valuation as the appraiser has determined the following:
1.       When I purchased the 80 acres in Napa County that is surrounded by multi-miilion dollar properties, it had two deeded legal easements from Mt. Veeder Road in Napa County.  One through residential properties going through a wooded area and then vineyards.  The other through a commercial and manufacturing winery.
2.       After a neighbor questioned the entrance through her residential property, it was determined by Craig Donner, title officer with Fidelity National Title that the easements through the residential properties were incorrectly conveyed to me and he opened the claim for me with his company.  (Please note that at no time did Fidelity attempt to re-acquire the lost easements.)
3.       Dragging this out over 1 ½ years, using an appraisal that I have demonstrated over and over again to be inaccurate to the point of ludicrous prepared by commercial appraisers from Boise Idaho (I would also like to note that one article I read described PGP Valuation Inc. “at the core” of the Marcus and Millichap fraud case which also did not give me great confidence in their honesty and integrity), the value of this lost easement has not been given a value of zero ($0).

                I am beginning to think that I am nuts.
                 Imagine you were in a car accident and another driver ran a red light and careened into your car causing you the loss of one of your legs and the other driver’s insurance company said, “Yes, our driver was at fault and we are filing a claim on your behalf.”  Then after you hobbled around on one leg for more than a year not being able to walk, the insurance company determines that your claim has a value of zero ($0) as they have hired Dr. Quackenbush from Boise, Idaho who states that the one leg you have is just fine (although it wasn’t even your strongest leg) and the lost leg added no discernable value to your body.  And now a year and a half later having suffered severe financial difficulties due to having only one leg you are told to hire a very expensive specialist (even though you have provided tons of documentation – including a letter from your boss saying that you could not perform the duties of your job and were being terminated - on the difficulties having only one leg has caused you) to say that yes your lost leg did have value.  And you know that once you have this opinion from this other specialist all you are going to have is your special’s opinion vs. Dr. Quackenbush’s opinion and you will be forced to litigate as the insurance company has not reviewed any of the documentation you have already provided them.  So why would they even look at the new doctor’s opinion?
                I am not asking you to determine a value.  I know that that is not within the realm of the Department of Insurance.  And I will probably spend the weekend reading regulations.  I did find the following on a law firm in San Francisco website.  I cannot believe that Fidelity National Title has not violated just about every regulation in the book.  I do not believe that anyone would find the value of ZERO of the loss of a residential entrance to a property after 1 ½ years leaving the legal entrance to the property as solely through a commercial and manufacturing property as prompt or fair or equitable.  I do not believe that an insured should have to battle with their insurance company and be ignored the way I have been treated by Fidelity National Insurance Company.  I do not feel that I should have had to provide information and data to the insurance company to dispute the bogus lies and misrepresentations made by their “approved” appraiser.  And I do not believe that I should have to implement litigation against my own insurance company who I hired and contracted to insure my interest in the property in order to get a settlement – let alone a just and fair settlement.
                I understand from the comment made below and I can only imagine with budget cuts that your department has even more limited resources than when this comment was written but I hope that this is one claim that you will be able to take action on under the Unfair Practices Act and will see that Fidelity National Insurance has acted in Bad Faith in the handling of this claim.  I could even understand a value of zero if there was a question as to whether or not I had a claim BUT THE CLAIM WAS INSTIGATED BY THEIR OWN TITLE OFFICER ON MY BEHALF. 
                It is my hope that you can throw the book at them (and I hope it is a very big and heavy book).  No one should have to go through what I have gone through in order to get settlement for a claim especially one that was filed on my behalf by their own title officer!  It is obvious that they have a behind the door policy to not settle claims knowing that only a small percentage of claimants will litigate.

                Once again thank you for listening to what I have to say in this matter.

Best Regards,



Ann Zollinger


                The California Insurance Code contains Insurance Code 790.03(h), which is called the Unfair Practices Act. It sets forth a variety of actions by an insurer that are considered unfair practices and therefore are improper. There is no right to sue directly under this statute. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Department of Insurance. However, that department has very limited resources to enforce this Act and rarely takes actions to enforce it.
                Still, a policyholder can use the statute when suing under the common law of Insurance Bad Faith to establish certain minimum standards with which an insurance company must comply. The list of prohibited acts is set forth below. It is by no means an exhaustive list of all of the conduct that would be improper or would constitute Insurance Bad Faith. The specific prohibited acts listed in Insurance Code 790.03(h) are as follows:
·         Misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to any coverages at issue
Fidelity National Title received and is using without review an appraisal that it has been demonstrated to them has misrepresentations, omissions and down right out and out lies.
·         Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies
I have been shuffled around to four claim counsels over the course of 1 ½ years waiting months for responses to letters for a claim that was filed on my behalf by Fidelity National Title itself.
·         Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims arising under insurance policies
Fidelity National Title failed to implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation by hiring a commercial appraisal firm from Boise Idaho which demonstrated no knowledge of residential real estate in Napa California.
·         Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements have been completed and submitted by the insured
This has been going on for 1 ½ years.
·         Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear
Liability was determined by Craig Donner, a title officer with Fidelity National Title for the four lost easements.  A value of zero after 1 ½ years is not a prompt, fair, or equitable settlement.
·         Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds when the insureds have made claims for amounts reasonably similar to the amounts ultimately recovered
As they are not offering a fair and just settlement I feel that I am being compelled to either pay for a very expensive appraisal ($6000) and with the way this has gone (the claims counsel has not read, reviewed or responded to the myriad of factual data that has been provided to him which presents an opposing view of the “approved” appraiser) I believe I will be compelled to institute litigation.
·         Attempting to settle a claim by an insured for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application
Per Stanley v. Atlantic Title Ins. The purpose of title insurance in to place the insured at the same position that he felt he had at the time he purchased the policy.  At that time I believed I had two (2) legal entrances from Mt. Veeder Road in Napa County.  I now have one (1).
·         Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application that was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured, his or her representative, agent, or broker
·         Failing, after payment of a claim, to inform insureds or beneficiaries, upon request by them, of the coverage under which payment has been made
·         Making known to insureds or claimants a practice by the insurer of appealing arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration
·         Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, claimant, or the physician of either, to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which contain substantially the same information
They are now requiring me to obtain at my great expense an opposing appraisal when well documented information has already been provided to them.
·         Failing to settle claims promptly when liability has become apparent under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage
·         Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for the denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement
·         Directly advising a claimant not to obtain the services of an attorney
·         Misleading a claimant as to the applicable statute of limitations
·         Delaying the payment or provision of hospital, medical, or surgical benefits for services provided with respect to acquired immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS-related complex for more than 60 days after the insurer has received a claim for those benefits, where the delay in claim payment is for the purpose of investigating whether the condition preexisted the coverage. However, this 60-day period shall not include any time during which the insurer is awaiting a response for relevant medical information from a health care provider.
(For more information on the California Insurance Code, please go to the Official California Legislative Information Web site, where you will find information on California Law and Insurance Codes.)
Department of Insurance Regulations
The Department of Insurance has issued regulations that apply to all insurance claims in California.
These regulations are lengthy and contain many requirements of insurance companies. The most common important provisions are the following:
Every insurance company is required to maintain a file that documents all important events. 10 CCR 2695.3
Every insurance company is required to advise the policyholder of all benefits, coverage, time limits, or other provisions which may apply to the claim, to advise the policyholder of when other or additional benefits may be payable, and to cooperate and assist the policyholder in obtaining these benefits. 10 CCR 2695.4(a)
 “cooperate and assist the policyholder in obtaining these benefits.”
Every insurance company shall immediately and properly respond to communications from policyholders. 10 CCR 2695.5(b)
“shall immediately and properly respond to communications from policyholders.”
Every insurance company shall maintain appropriate claims manuals. 10 CCR 2695.6
In most instances, claims shall be resolved within 40 days unless the insurance company notifies the claimant of the specific reasons (except for suspected fraud) why more time is required. Such notification must be made every 30 days. 10 CCR 2695.7(b)
“shall be resolved within 40 days” – I bet we hit 40 months.

A denial of a claim must set forth the specific factual and legal reasons and cite all applicable policy provisions. 10 CCR 2695.7(b)(1)
“must set forth the specific factual and legal reasons and cite all applicable policy provisions.”
No insurer shall attempt to settle a claim by making a settlement offer that is unreasonably low. 10 CCR 2695.7(g)
In most instances every insurance company shall tender payment of any portion of a claim that is not in dispute within 30 days of acceptance. 10 CCR 2695.7(h).
For more information on the California Insurance Code, please go to the Official California Legislative Information Web site, where you will find information on California Law and Insurance Codes.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Third Letter to the California Department of Insurance


K. McMullin
State of California Department of Insurance
Consumer Services and Market Conduct Branch Consumer Services Division
300 South Spring Street, South Tower
Los Angeles Ca  90013

Request for Assistance DOI File CSB-6459678

Ann Zollinger
PO Box 1675
Glen Ellen CA  95442

October 20, 2009

Re:         Fidelity National Title Group Inc.               Policy #609514
                Claim #301056

Dear Mr./Ms. McMullin,

I am respectfully requesting your assistance in the above referenced matter.

I spoke to Mr. Hansen more than a month ago and received a letter acknowledging the conversation that the original appraisal was done incorrectly and that a new appraisal and report would be ordered.  In that conversation we also discussed that a different appraisal company needed to be retained which had accurate knowledge of the Napa Valley as opposed to the first appraiser who was from Boise, Idaho.

Since then I have written, called and e-mailed Mr. Hansen to no avail.  I have also requested assistance from my title officer with Fidelity, Debbie Shelton.  Although not in the claims department she has attempted apparently also without results to assist me as the person who in essence sold me this insurance policy.

In short, I do not feel that I should need to retain an attorney and start legal proceedings in order to collect on an insurance claim which was actually begun on my behalf by a title officer with Fidelity National Title.    There is absolutely no dispute on either side as to the validity of this claim – only the amount of damages.  As it is my belief and I have provided evidence to Fidelity of a fairly substantial amount of damages, this appears as we have well exceeded a year that this is a deliberate move to not pay the claim as insured.

Thank you for your help and assistance with this matter and I look forward to its quick resolution.




Ann Zollinger


cc.  Jeff Hansen, Fidelity National Insurance
       Debbie Shelton, Fidelity National Insurance

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Second Letter to California Department of Insurance

Just begging for some help.


State of California
Department of Insurance
Consumer Services and Market Conduct Branch
Consumer Services Division
300 South Spring Street, South Tower
Los Angeles CA  90013

Request for Assistance

DOI File CSB-6459678

Ann Zollinger
PO Box 1675
Glen Ellen CA  95442

As you can see I was not receiving communication from Fidelity National Title and was forced to seek assistance from the

September 12, 2009

Re:         Fidelity National Title Group Inc.
                Policy #609514
                Claim #301056


A claim was begun on my behalf by a title officer from Fidelity National Title for a defect in title that was discovered in June of 2008.  An appraiser was hired from a different state who valued an existing easement to replace the lost easement rather than the value of the lost easement to the property.  I was assigned by fourth Claims Counsel Officer from Fidelity approximately one month ago.  I wrote to Mr. Jeff Hansen on August 21, 2009 once again asking for assistance in resolving this on-going matter.  I have not received any communication back from him to date.

Again, I respectfully request that Fidelity National Title hire another appraiser to correctly and honestly value the diminution in value that the loss of the insured easement caused.  I also respectfully request that this be done immediately as this situation has been going on now for more than a year.

Thank you for your help and assistance with this matter.



Ann Zollinger

Monday, March 18, 2013

Communication to California Department of Insurance about Fidelity National Title


State of California
Department of Insurance
Consumer Services and Market Conduct Branch
Consumer Services Division
300 South Spring Street, South Tower
Los Angeles CA  90013

Request for Assistance

Ann Zollinger
PO Box 1675
Glen Ellen CA  95442

July 5, 2009

Re:         Fidelity National Title Group Inc.
                Policy #609514
                Claim #301056

I purchased a property at 4035 Mt. Veeder road in Napa County California and the title was insured by the above stated policy.

·         At the time I purchased the property there was three ways to access the property.  There was an easement through the former Chateau Potelle property which was described as Parcel Six in the above policy from Mt. Veeder Road.  There was an additional entrance from Mt. Veeder Road described as Parcel Two, Three, Four and Five in the above policy.  There was also a prescriptive easement from Cavedale Road in Sonoma County.
·         I went to sell the property listing it on June 12, 2009.  Shortly before listing the property my agent and I began notifying the other property owners of the easements that we would be crossing their property.  One property owner who had purchased their property the preceding February questioned our right to cross their land.  They contacted their title company  who determined that this particular easement should not have been conveyed to me and was not a legal easement.
·         I contacted my title company Fidelity National Title through my escrow officer in July of 2008.  It then took months for their title department to determine that indeed the easement described as Parcel Two, Three, Four and Five should not have been conveyed to me.  The title officer, Craig Donner, actually opened the claim on my behalf.  This was the beginning of October 2008.
·         By making phone calls I found out that I was assigned to Dennis Lucey Walnut Creek, California in the middle of October.  I received a letter from Mr. Lucey the end of October.  We discussed the two options of either obtaining the easements through purchase or compensating me for the loss of the easements by determining the value of the property with and without the easements.
·         On November 13, 2008 I received a letter that I was re-assigned to the Midwest Claims Center , Adam Pinchuck, in Chicago Illinois.  My conversations with Mr. Pinchuck basically went nowhere with him telling me that I needed to hire an appraiser to determine the change in value.  I talked to one appraiser who pointed out that this was not necessary.  At the time I was discussing this with Mr. Pinchuck I received a letter stating that the Chicago office was being closed and I was being re-assigned again to Omaha Nebraska.
·         On January 26, 2009 I called Dennis Lucey my original claims counsel and he told me that I had been assigned to Robert Kelly in Omaha Nebraska.  When I reached Mr. Kelly he indicated that he was basically inundated with cases and has in spite of that made an effort to resolve my case but I believe due to his case load things have just not been resolved.
·         The beginning of March an appraiser from Boise Idaho was hired to do the appraisal.  The appraiser kept promising the appraisal – finally promising that it would be done by the end of April – we received the appraisal on May 7, 2009.
·         The appraiser determined that perfecting the existing easement into Sonoma County and determining a “cost to cure” this easement was the factor to determine the settlement of this case.

It is my feeling that Fidelity National Title has deliberately and intentionally delayed a fair and just payment of this claim through its actions as follows:

·         By taking months to research and determine that the easements as conveyed were not valid.
·         By moving my claim first from Walnut Creek to Chicago to Omaha.
·         By delaying the hiring of an appraiser to determine the diminution in value for more than six months and then hiring an appraiser who is unfamiliar with the area and who is not following the instructions as outlined in the letter from Claims Counsel Robert Kelly as defined in his e-mail dated June 25, 2009.
·         Approximately a week before that e-mail was sent Mr. Kelly told me that he had written a letter to the one neighbor to see if they were willing to re-instate the easements and also had contacted a different title officer in Napa California to see if there had been a mistake on the loss of these easements.  (Both of these actions are almost a year after first discovering that there was a problem with the easements as conveyed.)

Per the letter from Mr. Kelly there are two applicable options to resolve this matter:

·         “Pay the insured his or her actual loss.”
·         “Cure the insured’s title by obtaining a deed, easement, release or other instrument.”

As I mentioned it has taken almost a year for anyone from Fidelity National Title to even attempt the later remedy and it is doubtful that this will be successful.   And per Mr. Kelly’s letter:

·         “The appraisal must be done as of the date of discovery of the defect.  The appraiser must produce two values: the value subject to the easement, and the value assuming that no easement existed.  The loss is ordinarily the difference between the two figures.”

Instead of following the above direction the appraiser chose to ascertain a value of curing the easement from the property to Cavedale Road in Sonoma County as a substitution for the loss of the entrance to Mt. Veeder in Napa County.  Additionally the appraiser has demonstrated his unfamiliarity with the area and has used comparable properties that are not at the date of discovery in order to determine an artificially low value.

I have written a rather precise response to Mr. Kelly and have attempted to reach him for the last week but cannot get either a return phone call or response to my e-mail.

Per the latest case law regarding title insurance “the purpose of title insurance is to place the insured in the position that he thought he occupied when the policy was issued.”

I believe that Fidelity National Title Group Inc. has deliberately and intentionally stalled in their resolution of this matter and now is accepting an appraisal which clearly contradicts the instructions of Claims Counsel in order to obtain an artificially low value.  I have repeated stated that rather than filing a lawsuit I am willing to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of this claim.  Instead of attempting this route, Fidelity National Title Group Inc. has chosen to just not even respond.

Respectfully submitted,



Ann Zollinger

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Fidelity National Title actually implied that I acted in Bad Faith


I wrote at great length toward the beginning of this blog on the Response to the Third Amended Complaint about what Fidelity said in this document.  To sum my interpretation two things stood out in my mind. First, that Fidelity National Title Insurance Company was somehow not really responsible for the errors made by Fidelity National Title Company (therefore the Defendant had no office in Napa, did not employ escrow officers nor title officers and did not prepare the erroneous Grant Deed) and then through their extensive list of Affirmative Responses they implied that I was responsible for my loss - in my opinion then made me trying to get them to honor their insurance policy - the adversary of Fidelity National Title.

·         Treatment of insured represented by attorneys as insurer adversaries.
·         Treatment of insured and claimants as adversaries.


 Here is one example per Fidelity National Title's Response to the Third Amended Complaint written by Edward Kunnes:

"Defendant [FNTIC] is informed and believes and thereupon allege that Plaintiff [me] is guilty of unclean hands with regard to the matter set forth in the TAC."
  • Well I admit I have absolutely no idea what unclean hands is - that is in the legal term - or are they talking about when I am gardening or petting the St. Bernard or cleaning the bathroom?????
  • Unclean hands??  Per Wikipedia, "Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has  acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".
  • I do not think I have been acting unethically.  The claim was opened by a title officer on my behalf.  I did not prepare the Preliminary Title Report nor the Grant Deed.
  • I just do not even know what to say or ask.
So can someone please explain to me how this makes sense?  By having their title officer open a claim on my behalf - how did I act unethically or how did I act in bad faith?????????????

I would really love to ask Edward Kunnes to explain this to me.  Maybe I should write him a letter.  Hmmm.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #9


·         Attempting to prevent the court or an insured's attorney with due exception from securing a copy of an insurer's claims manual.

Fidelity National Title responded to our request for this manual as a privileged trade secret document.



·         Attempting to shift blame and responsibility of investigation to insured and away from the insurer.

As I mentioned Edward Kunnes stated in the Response to the Third Amended Complain in his affirmative defenses I felt was putting the blame on me - tomorrow I will pull out those documents and quote them again.



·         Intentionally misinterpreting or misconstruing the law to the disadvantage of the insured and benefit of the insurer.

Well at the Settlement Conference when I brought up the Brief written by Jeff Hansen that if I complained they were going to make the legal argument that I was not longer insured as I no longer owned the property. Edward Kunnes rather pointedly commented that this was accurate. But then I cannot help but wonder if stalling and delaying the processing of a claim - and in this case they knew I had decided to let the property be foreclosed on as Jim Gibson, the appraiser, had reported this - did they do this intentionally as just another way to get out of paying the claim?

Okay - I am tired.  So much for tonight and playing at my new hobby.  Writing about Fidelity National Title and my claim.

Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #8


·         Treatment of insured represented by attorneys as insurer adversaries.
·         Treatment of insured and claimants as adversaries.
·         Using extreme undue persecution, wrongful and victimizing tactics and actions, meant to crush, threaten, thwart, intimidate, oppress, in order to scare away and get the claimant not to make or pursue a claim.

I have written a tome of letters to Fidelity National Title and since I was transferred to the Omaha office - I have felt that somehow I was an adversary - not the insured. I believe this brief - here again responds to this:


In this Brief Jeff Hansen and Todd Moody have apparently already had a conversation where they have decided even before it is done that the second appraisal will be lower and that I am going to complain.  This does not sound to me like they are treating me like anything other than an adversary.


The Response to the Third Complaint by Edward Kunnes in my opinion in their affirmative defenses in essence basically said that the fact that their was a claim for Parcels Two through Five being included in my prelim and Grant Deed when they should not have been was my fault.

And finally even at the Settlement Conference Richard McNeely spent the entire first portion of the conference lecturing and I felt threatening me (I even put this down in my notes and showed it to him "Scare tactics") that even if I won I could still end up owing Fidelity National Title Insurance money.



·         Biased investigation of that which is supposed to be neutral and unbiased.

Please see the Brief above. I do not believe I need to say anything other than what Jeff Hansen wrote.


Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #7


·         Attempts to use indiscriminate measures, reference and/or procedures that diminish or reduce the top line amount or value representing full payment of the claim.
·         Utilization and/or development of deceptive insurer schemes or use of outside company services set up or conducted to carry out the same false pretense schemes (i.e. "Independent Medical Examiner Paper Reviews") for the purpose to be able to wrongfully deny or reduce payment of claims.

Hard to say why Fidelity National Title would chose an appraiser Jim Gibson from Boise Idaho to appraise a property in Napa California except that he had "successfully" done appraisers for them before and they liked his work. Which I guess would mean that they felt he would look out for their best interests?




Of course, there were no notes provided on the conversation between Owen Girard and Jim Gibson.  I find it very odd considering so many of the claims counsels are attorneys that no one takes notes on their telephone conversations.

Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #6


·         Unjustified contention and/or "lowballing" regarding the value of a loss.

This one actually has even me speechless. It is kind of hard to get lower than $0 for the loss of an almost mile long easement. I will let you, the reader, decide if you think this is "lowballing".



·         Intentionally withhold, misinterpret or misconstrue claims information and/or failure to not inform insured of provisions and covered benefits under the policy pertinent to a claim.
  •  Intentional or irresponsible non-disclosure and withholding of information, misinterpretation of file documents and/or policy provisions that would be in favor of the claimant.



I think the statement written by Robert Kelly of Fidelity National Title speaks for itself.

Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #5


·         Using harassing, intrusive or demeaning investigative methods and procedures which victimize the insured.



Note:  The sales data I provided was not addressed in the appraisal report.  And, yes, I "complained" just as predicted.




Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #4


·         Using illegal and fraudulent investigative methods and procedures.

I don't know- when I purchased (aka as paid for) title insurance from Fidelity National Title I thought the purpose of was per the Fidelity National Title website:

"When you purchase real property, rely on Fidelity National Title to protect your interests."

So why did they then hire an appraiser from Boise Idaho?  And why would he communicate that he was going to do a Cost to Cure method if the value would be less than a Diminution in Value appraisal first and then subsequently when I questioned that appraisal do a Diminution in Value appraisal that was in deed less - actually with a value of $0 for the loss of an almost mile long easement?  Perhaps all good questions.

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage.

I think that the appraisals might have been carefully calculated to the advantage of Fidelity National Title.  The one thing I am sure of that the appraisals were not calculated for my benefit or advantage!!! 

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.

The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of false pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

Did Fidelity National Title Act in Good Faith? #3


·         Insurer attempts to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed was entitled or attempts to substantially diminish a claim requiring an insured to initiate litigation.

So this one is pretty simple. Fidelity National Title first attempted to settle the claim by offering a Cost to Cure to the wrong road in the wrong county which I did not agree with. They then decided that the loss of a mile long easement to an 80 acre parcel in the infamous Napa Valley was worth nothing. Somehow I, as what I consider to be a reasonable person, did not believe that my loss was $0 nor that this was the amount that I was entitled to. After years of trying to get Fidelity National Title and it's claims counsels to not substantially diminish my claim, I did have to initiate litigation and Fidelity National Title did finally settle for an amount although still not close to my loss - it was substantially more than nothing. Richard McNeely actually got whoever he talked to - to increase the amount as I pointed out some of the documents that Fidelity National Title provided that he appeared to be unaware of.


·         Requesting over burdensome documentation demands not required by the policy.

I was repeatedly told to obtain an appraisal at my expense but there was no provision in the policy that stated that this was required. I did though provide ample evidence to substantiate my claim of the loss.

Did Fidelity National Title act in Good Faith? #2



·         Failure to offer or attempt to effectuate prompt, fair and reasonable evaluation of damages and equitable settlements of claims to insured within a reasonable time where liability is reasonably clear.

I believe that liability was reasonably clear as the claim was actually opened on my behalf by the title department of Fidelity upon discovering (apparently - although I was not provided with the documentation until four years later) that the four "parcels" listed in my prelim and grant deed were not in the seller's grant deed so therefore were not his to grant. How this actually happened is unknown.  And, of course, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company denied responsibility as they did not prepare the grant deed which was prepared I now know by Fidelity National Title Company.  I do wonder though why they would insure a grant deed prepared by someone else??  And the prelim is an offer of insurance and it, too, is prepared by Fidelity National Title Company.  So then since Fidelity National Title Insurance Company did not prepare either of these documents - were they then liable??  Good question.

So was the evaluation of damages prompt, fair and reasonable?  Well the loss was discovered in July of 2008 and the first erroneous in my opinion appraisal was completed in May of 2009 and the second in November of 2009.  So is ten months and sixteen months prompt?  I do not think so but then this is just my opinion.  Of course, my claim had to be moved all over the country from claims counsel to claims counsel - and that took a lot of time.  And it took three months to do even the first appraisal.  And the second appraisal was apparently done just to humor me after I had contacted the Department of Insurance.

And was it fair and reasonable??  I believe I have addressed my perceived quality of the two appraisals done by Jim Gibson and Phil Stefan on numerous posts.  No, I do not feel that their evaluation of the loss was either fair or reasonable.




With my Claim did Fidelity National Title act in Good Faith?

Did Fidelity National Title look for and find ways to accept and pay my claim properly and promptly???

Well this is an excellent question.  I think the easiest way is to go through the points of bad faith actions and see if any of them apply.  This might help.

·         An insurer may be acting in bad faith if the insurer delays, discounts or denies payment without a reasonable basis for its delay, discounting or denial.

Well I was first assigned to a claims counsel in Walnut Creek then Chicago then a couple of different ones in Omaha.  Each one added months and months to the process.  The claim took so long to process that by the time I received the final response from Jeff Hansen I no longer owned the property and he then decided that coverage because of that was no longer appropriate.  Interesting. Did they all stall and delay in the processing of the claim to delay it knowing that I was letting it be foreclosed on so that they could then legally state that coverage was not appropriate?

Discount??  Well they hired an appraiser Jim Gibson from Boise Idaho who first did a cost to cure appraisal to Cavedale Road in Sonoma County to replace my easement to Mount Veeder Road in Napa County using misleading and inaccurate information such as comparing my property in Oakville to a market area of American Canyon.  Mr. Gibson's second appraisal found the loss of my mile long easement had a value of $0 in a diminution of value appraisal.  My evaluation of properties which were comparable to mine and all of the neighboring showed a diminution in value of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  So did Fidelity by using an out of area appraiser from their "approved" list discount the value of my claim??

And did Fidelity National Title deny my claim?  One of the more interesting things was that Claims Counsel #3 Robert Kelly actually discovered through further research that the easements were apparently valid.  So then he or someone posed the question of what to do as Fidelity had told me that the easements were not valid and I was marketing it such.  And the response was to let me know this (but the letter to be honest was not clear) and then to say that coverage was excluded (which was clear.)  But I did not understand this as it would not be covered if the easements were not in the public record............but a Fidelity Title Officer had provided me with the public records prior to my purchasing the property.  Additionally, Jeff Hansen, Jennifer Reeves, Ryan Forrest, Richard McNeely and Edward Kunnes continued to handle the claim as is it were valid.  They did not deny the claim as it had been opened by a Fidelity Title employee - they just felt that the value of the loss was nothing.  So I guess that other than Robert Kelly no one denied the claim.

An Incredibly Long Conversation about Fidelity National Title

Well I conversed on the topic of Fidelity National Title last night with my new "friend" - until the battery died on my cell phone.

At this point I cannot discuss details of what Fidelity National Title is (or more rightly described - is NOT) doing in their case as they are still in the middle of it but other than the details of the claim their experience with Fidelity National Title is incredibly similar to mine.

Here is what I can say.  Fidelity National Title, of course, denied at first they had a claim.  After a long battle instigated and fought by the insured they now have a claim but as with mine numerous claims agents all over the country (we even have one in common - surprise surprise) and a prolonged battle.  And their claim goes on...... and on..... and on.

Their experience (as was mine) is that the claims counsel's job is not to settle the claim to the benefit of the insured but is to protect Fidelity National Title's bottom line.  Or at least that it the way it appears.

A lot of our conversation centered around how do we reach other current or former clients that were insured by Fidelity National Title who experienced or are experiencing a similar claim handling situation to what we experienced as we are all right now just individuals commenting on our experiences with Fidelity National Title.  United we can combine our skills and information and then determine the best action to take - not for financial gain but really to expose that if one purchases title insurance from Fidelity National Title - is your property really insured?

As this is a national company - is their a government agency besides the individual state Departments of Insurance or the state's Attorney General?  What agency? Does anyone have any experience with how to begin a national campaign???

Friday, March 8, 2013

Examples of Bad Faith Insurance Practices


Per the research I have done here are examples of how an insurance company can act in bad faith:

·         An insurer may be acting in bad faith if the insurer delays, discounts or denies payment without a reasonable basis for its delay, discounting or denial.
·         Failure of insurer to acknowledge and reply promptly upon notification of a covered claim.
·         Failure of insurer to acknowledge and reply promptly upon notification of a covered claim.
·         Failure of insurer to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time upon receipt of claim and/or proofs of loss.
·         Failure to offer or attempt to effectuate prompt, fair and reasonable evaluation of damages and equitable settlements of claims to insured within a reasonable time where liability is reasonably clear.
·         Insurer attempts to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed was entitled or attempts to substantially diminish a claim requiring an insured to initiate litigation.
·         Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application and/or policy which is altered without notice, knowledge or consent of the Insured.
·         Making payment(s) for claims without accompanying statement indicating the coverage for which payment(s) are being made.
·         Insurer failure to make known any arbitration award appeals policy in an attempt to settle a claim for less than the arbitration amount awarded.
·         Failure of insurer to promptly settle claims, where liability and coverage is reasonably clear under one portion of the insurance policy in order to influence settlements of coverage for another portion(s) of the policy.
·         Requesting over burdensome documentation demands not required by the policy.
·         Using illegal and fraudulent investigative methods and procedures.
·         Using harassing, intrusive or demeaning investigative methods and procedures which victimize the insured.
·         Failure of an insurer to settle a claim directly, when and where settlement is required, and instead requiring the insured to pursue a claim against another party first before offering settlement.
·         Failure of Insurer to make full and satisfactory payment of a first party claim prior to requiring settlement or exhausting the limits of a third-party insurer (i.e. in uninsured motorist cases).
·         Unjustified contention and/or "lowballing" regarding the value of a loss.
·         Intentionally withhold, misinterpret or misconstrue claims information and/or failure to not inform insured of provisions and covered benefits under the policy pertinent to a claim.
·         Attempts to use indiscriminate measures, reference and/or procedures that diminish or reduce the top line amount or value representing full payment of the claim.
·         Intentional or irresponsible non-disclosure and withholding of information, misinterpretation of file documents and/or policy provisions that would be in favor of the claimant.
·         Wrongful threats not to pay claims.
·         Utilization and/or development of deceptive insurer schemes or use of outside company services set up or conducted to carry out the same false pretense schemes (i.e. "Independent Medical Examiner Paper Reviews") for the purpose to be able to wrongfully deny or reduce payment of claims.
·         Treatment of insured represented by attorneys as insurer adversaries.
·         Treatment of insured and claimants as adversaries.
·         Significant increase in amount of premium as a result of making a claim where insured was not at fault and in conflict with industry standards.
·         Cancellation of a policy as a result of making a claim or result of an accident where insured was not at fault and in conflict with industry standards.
·         Using inaccurate or wrongful information of a factual or legal nature to diminish, deny or delay payment of a claim.
·         Not being forthcoming with facts regarding coverage to deny, delay or reduce the amount of the claim.
·         Using extreme undue persecution, wrongful and victimizing tactics and actions, meant to crush, threaten, thwart, intimidate, oppress, in order to scare away and get the claimant not to make or pursue a claim.
·         Biased investigation of that which is supposed to be neutral and unbiased.
·         Utilization of internal one-sided or outside companies biased schemes, such as in so-called "IME" bias (independent medical examiner bias), which are supposed to be objective and neutral, in order to wrongfully enable, facilitate and support insurer's position to fraudulently deny, reduce or discontinue payments of claims.
·         Attempting to prevent the court or an insured's attorney with due exception from securing a copy of an insurer's claims manual.
·         Attempting to shift blame and responsibility of investigation to insured and away from the insurer.
·         Intentionally misinterpreting or misconstruing the law to the disadvantage of the insured and benefit of the insurer.
·         Unreasonable misinterpretation of policy language.