In short: It depends on the policy and the facts: Florida title policies usually exclude matters an inspection or accurate survey would reveal, and an insurer may argue that a visible power line put the buyer on notice of the easement behind it. In Coast Development Corp. v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Sumter County developer said Old Republic missed a recorded 1973 blanket utility easement, and Old Republic won summary judgment based on a power line running through the middle of the property. The Fifth District affirmed on September 29, 2020, without a written opinion.
The Facts
Coast Development Corp. bought land in Sumter County and took an owner’s title policy from Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. A power line crossed the middle of the property, and the survey Coast obtained before closing showed it. What the title commitment did not list, according to Coast, was a blanket easement recorded in 1973 that gave the utility rights over the whole parcel, not just a strip under the line.
Coast made a claim and then sued. The trial court entered final summary judgment for Old Republic, finding that Coast had actual notice of the power line. Before that, the court had struck an amended report from Coast’s expert. Coast appealed (No. 5D2019-1791), and the case was argued by video in June 2020. Jason Gonzalez argued for Coast and Mya Hatchette for Old Republic. The points below are what the lawyers argued, not findings by the court.
- Coast argued the policy’s survey exception reaches an “encumbrance” disclosed by an inspection or accurate survey, and a survey can show a power line but never a blanket easement over every acre. A competent title search would have found the recorded easement, and that is what Coast paid for.
- Coast argued no Florida appellate court has held a title policyholder to “implied actual notice” and a duty to investigate, and that the language Old Republic relied on in McDaniel v. Lawyers’ Title Guaranty Fund was dicta. At most, Coast said, what a reasonable buyer would have perceived was a jury question.
- Coast also argued the court struck its amended expert report without finding prejudice, even though trial was later continued for months.
- Old Republic argued the power line ran through the middle of the property, Coast’s people visited the site many times before closing, its survey showed the line, and its own representatives admitted they knew of it. Knowing of the line, Old Republic said, Coast had a duty to ask the power company what rights it held, and the survey exception barred coverage.
- Old Republic argued Coast’s “blanket easement” scope argument was raised for the first time on appeal, and that the expert ruling was moot or proper.
- The panel pressed both sides on whether a survey can ever show an “encumbrance” in the legal sense, and on what a duty to inquire would mean for an ordinary homeowner who sees a utility box in the backyard.
The Decision
The Fifth District affirmed on September 29, 2020. The ACIS docket lists the disposition as “Per Curiam Affirmed,” with no written opinion. The mandate issued October 19, 2020.
A per curiam affirmance decides only this case. It does not tell us whether the court agreed that Coast had notice through the power line, that the survey exception applied, or that the expert ruling was outside the appeal. It is not a ruling that title insurers are excused whenever a buyer can see a utility line.
The Law
Florida requires a title insurer to make a determination of insurability, based on a reasonable title search, before it issues a commitment or policy. That is section 627.7845, Florida Statutes. Coast’s case was built on that duty: a recorded easement is exactly what a search is supposed to find.
Most owner’s policies also carry a standard exception for matters that an inspection of the land or an accurate survey would disclose. In McDaniel v. Lawyers’ Title Guaranty Fund, 327 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), and Morton v. Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc., 32 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), the Second District read that kind of exception narrowly, as reaching defects so obvious that a reasonable person inspecting the land would see them, not recorded matters a title search should catch. McDaniel also said a line crossing the middle of a property would ordinarily put a buyer on inquiry, and Old Republic leaned on that statement.
The case was decided on summary judgment under rule 1.510. Current law (2026): the Florida Supreme Court amended rule 1.510 effective May 1, 2021 to adopt the federal summary judgment standard. A party opposing summary judgment now has to point to evidence that would let a reasonable jury find in its favor; the older Florida rule, which applied here, let even a slight doubt defeat the motion.
Lessons
- Read Schedule B of the commitment before closing and ask what each exception covers. A general survey or inspection exception can become the insurer’s main defense.
- If a utility line, ditch or road crosses the land, get the recorded easement itself and confirm its width and scope. A blanket easement and a defined strip are very different burdens on a developer.
- Ask whether survey coverage can be added or the survey exception deleted based on a current survey. That is a negotiation to have before closing, not after.
- Expert reports and disclosures should be complete on time. A late amended report can be struck, and fixing that on appeal is hard.
- A per curiam affirmance settles only this dispute. It does not make every visible utility line a defense for the insurer.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
📜 | Title Insurer Off the Hook? — Coast Development Fights Summary Judgment Over Title Defect
Read the Law on FloridaRules.net
The statutes and court rules discussed in this article, free to read on FloridaRules.net:
Go Deeper
- An Unrecorded Easement, a Seller Who Sat on the Buyer's Board (Lauramar v. Mel Fisher)
- A Developer's Parking Easement Over Its Own Land Fails on Appeal (AFP 103 Corp. v. Common Wealth Trust)
- When Florida Banned Title Agents From Rebating Their Commission, the Supreme Court Struck It Down (Chicago Title v. Butler)
Frequently Asked Questions
Does title insurance cover an easement that was not listed in the title commitment?
Often, if the easement was recorded and the policy does not except it, because the insurer is supposed to find recorded matters through a reasonable title search under section 627.7845. But the insurer will look to the policy’s general exceptions, including the survey and inspection exception. In Coast Development, the insurer won by arguing a visible power line put the buyer on notice.
What is the survey exception in a Florida title insurance policy?
It is a standard Schedule B exception for encroachments, encumbrances or other matters that an accurate survey or an inspection of the land would disclose. Florida courts, including McDaniel and Morton, have read it to reach matters obvious on the ground, not recorded documents the insurer should have found. Buyers can often ask to have it removed or limited by providing a current survey.
Can I sue my title insurance company for missing an easement?
A policyholder can bring a claim and, if it is denied, sue on the policy. Expect the insurer to rely on the exceptions and exclusions, and on what you knew or saw before closing. Coast Development sued and lost on summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed without an opinion.
If I can see power lines on a property, do I have to investigate the easement?
Florida law on this point is not settled for title insurance claims. McDaniel said a line through the middle of a property would ordinarily put a buyer on inquiry, while Coast argued no court had ever made that the holding of a title insurance case. The safe course is to pull the recorded easement and read it before closing.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate disputes, title problems and appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
