Why did Fidelity National Title not reacquire the lost easement??

Dennis Lucey, the first Claims Counsel in Walnut Creek, California, said that he would check into the validity of the lost easements first, and then if they were not valid, he would look into reacquiring the easements from the owners.  This seemed logical to me.

But I never heard anything more about this option - rather is was first confirmed by Adam Pinchuck, the second Claims counsel in Chicago, that the easement was insured.  The Robert Q. Kelly commissioned Jim Gibson, an appraiser from Boise Idaho, who apparently determined the correct way to value the Diminution in Value was to value the prescriptive easement to Cavedale Road in Sonoma County to replace the lost easement to Mount Veeder Road in Napa County.  To me this was not logical.

So did Fidelity ever contact the owners of the properties where the easements were?  And if so, what did they say?  Would they sell the easements?  And if so, for how much?  And why did Fidelity National Title then not purchase the easements that they insured???????

So according to the last line of this document by Robert Q. Kelly, the third Claims Counsel for Fidelity National Title,there was communication with the neighbor.  Which neighbor?  All of the neighbors?  Who and when did this negotiation take place?  What exactly did the neighbor say?  Was an offer made to purchase the easement?  If so, how much was offered? Was any other neighbors approached to acquire an easement?  Where is the communication regarding this request?

And how is this not relevant to this action????  And as the reference to this communication is in the claims file provided - what happened to the documents commemorating this negotiation??????