Integrity and Fidelity National Title

“The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way for false statements by intention. And a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit.”
―Dorothy L. Sayers

The irony after a four year long battle with Fidelity National Title over the easements being not valid and it being determined by the second Claims Counsel Adam Pinchuck that they were insured, then after a year Robert Q. Kelly determines that is as insured:

Robert Q. Kelly is then advised by Johnson:

Robert Q. Kelly then writes: 

But Mr. Kelly never told me that there was no loss and therefore the property was as insured but again no effort was made to give me access to the easements.  What I understood at the time and also what my attorney understood was that Parcels Two through Five were excepted from insurance under Schedule B Part II but this did not make sense to me as this states if not recorded - and the Fidelity National Title Officer provided me with the recorded public records of these easements.

And what was even more mysterious is that after this Jeff Hansen continued to treat it as a covered loss and commissioned another appraisal.

But when I "complained" about this second appraisal I was then told that the property was not insured as I no longer owned it.  At the Settlement Conference Edward Kunnes said (smugly in my opinion) that this was true.

But then it raises the question as to why Fidelity would have stalled and stalled on the settling of the claim to intentionally apply this legal "loophole."  I do not know if it is a "loophole" or not to be honest but it seems odd to me that the claim was filed a year before - and therefore was not handled in a quick and efficient way.  Was that intentional?  

And what part of anything that was said to me was true?  or accurate?  or honest?  I do not know.