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
No comments:
Post a Comment