Casero et al v. Chicago Title Insurance Company et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 2/12/2018. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
GEORGE L. RUSSELL, III
United States District Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055

February 12, 2018
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:

Robert A. Casero, Jr., et al. v. Chicago Title
Insurance Company, et al.
Civil Action No. GLR-17-2165

Dear Counsel:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Robert A. Casero, Jr. and Catherine Mary Hattenburg’s
Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 59 and 60. (ECF No. 12).
The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.
2016). For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Plaintiffs request that the Court delay entering final judgment in this case because the final
ruling in the underlying suit, John S. McNulty, et al. v. Robert A. Casero, Jr., et al., GLR-16-2426
(the “Underlying Suit”), could potentially affect the Court’s ruling in this case. The Court disagrees.
A title insurer’s duty to defend depends on: “(1) the scope of the policy’s coverage and (2) whether
the allegations in the underlying suit bring the claim within this coverage.” Back Creek Partners,
LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 75 A.3d 394, 399 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 2013) (emphasis added) (citing
Cheverly Terrace P’ship v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 642 A.2d 285, 287 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1994)). So,
the policy’s language and the complaint in the Underlying Suit—not the outcome of the Underlying
Suit—control the analysis in this case. In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court properly considered
only the allegations in the Underlying Suit and the scope of the policy’s coverage when finding in
favor of Defendants. (See Aug. 30, 2017 Mem. Op., ECF No. 10). Accordingly, the Court will deny
Plaintiffs’ Motion.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgment
Pursuant to FRCP 59 and 60 (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. Despite the informal nature of this
memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it
accordingly.
Very truly yours,
/s/
_______________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge