Boyer et al v. First American Title Insurance Co.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: pltfs' MSJ 19 & referral to MJ for Settlement Conference - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. MSJ 19 is GRANTED to extent that 1st American's 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th & 9th affirm defenses are STRICKEN.; 2. In all other re spects motion is DENIED.; 3. In acc w/ Rult 16.9 of LR of USDC MDPA, matter REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for purpose of conducting a Settlement Conference Only w/ settlement conf to be scheduled @ convenience of Magistrate Judge Carlson & noting those vested w/ settlement authority shall be required to attend this conference. (See memo & order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 05/31/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE A. BOYER and MELISSA
BOYER,
Plaintiffs
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-550
(Judge Conner)

MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19)
filed by plaintiffs Lee A. Boyer and Melissa Boyer (collectively “Boyer”) in this
dispute over claims under a title insurance policy issued by a corporate predecessor
of defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“First American”). For the
reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and the
parties shall be directed to participate in a settlement conference before a United
States Magistrate Judge in accordance with Local Rule 16.9.
In May 2008, after signing a natural gas lease permitting the exploration and
extraction of natural gas from their real property in Tioga County, the Boyers were
notified that they did not own the subsurface estate of their property. Specifically,
the Boyers were advised that subsurface rights were reserved by George and Leona
Cochran by deed dated November 17, 1964. No such reservation or exception
appears in the title insurance policy issued by First American.

Within approximately two months, the Boyers made a formal claim with
First American based upon the prior reservation of the subsurface estate of their
Tioga County property. The Boyers seek damages arising from this encumbrance
(the reservation of subsurface rights) to fee simple title which was not excepted
from coverage in the title policy issued by First American. Unsurprisingly, First
American has not denied the Boyers’ claim. (See Doc. 23, p. 16 n.3). To the
contrary, what has ensued is essentially a dispute over the value of the Boyers’
claim.1
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Through summary adjudication the court may dispose of those claims that do

not present a “genuine dispute as to any material fact” and for which a jury trial
would be an empty and unnecessary formality. See FED . R. CIV . P. 56(a). The
burden of proof is upon the non-moving party to come forth with “affirmative
evidence, beyond the allegations of the pleadings,” in support of its right to relief.
Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331 F. Supp. 2d 311, 315 (M.D. Pa. 2004); FED . R. CIV . P.
56(e); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This evidence
must be adequate, as a matter of law, to sustain a judgment in favor of the nonmoving party on the claims. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 25057 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-89

1

First American also pursued an unsuccessful quiet title action seeking to
restore the Boyers’ subsurface rights.
2

(1986); see also FED . R. CIV . P. 56(a), (c), (e). Only if this threshold is met may the
cause of action proceed. Pappas, 331 F. Supp. 2d at 315.
II.

DISCUSSION
The court begins with what is not in dispute, to wit: the third, fourth,

seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses. First American concedes that these
defenses are inapplicable or ineffective and may be struck. The court shall grant
plaintiffs’ motion as to these affirmative defenses and the same shall be stricken by
court order.
Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and supporting documents, it is pellucidly
clear that the amount of the Boyers’ damages claim and the basis for the Boyers’
bad faith claim are disputed. Indeed, factual disputes abound as to the proper
calculation of damages, reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct, and the cause of
the delay in adjusting what, at first blush, appears to be an obvious loss under the
title policy. Without adopting or rejecting either party’s contentions, the court
simply notes the undeniable presence of factual issues precluding the entry of
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Given unequivocal acknowledgment of defendant’s responsibility under the
title policy, the court views the instant dispute to be one of assessing claim value as
opposed to claim liability. Accordingly, the parties shall be directed to appear for a
pretrial settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Martin

3

Carlson; the personal attendance of those vested with settlement authority shall be
required.
An appropriate order follows.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

Dated:

May 31, 2012

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE A. BOYER and MELISSA
BOYER,
Plaintiffs
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-550
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19), and for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.

The motion is GRANTED to the extent that First American’s third,
fourth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses are hereby
STRICKEN.

2.

In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

3.

In accordance with Rule 16.9 of the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, this matter is
referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for the purpose of
conducting a settlement conference only. The settlement conference
shall be scheduled at the convenience of Magistrate Judge Carlson.
Those vested with settlement authority shall be required to attend this
conference.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge