Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Darryl J. Panella LLC

The trial court erred in finding that the 6-year statute of limitation in OCGA § 9-3-24 barred the title insurance company's claims arising from numerous title insurance policies the defendants issued, as the agency contract between the parties was a contract with an indemnity provision and the record did not show that more than six years elapsed between the date the claims for indemnity accrued and the filing of the lawsuit.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case involves professional negligence/breach of contract claims and whether the applicable statute of limitation bars those claims. On September 5, 2000, Darryl J. Panella and Darryl J. Panella, LLC collectively “Panella”, entered into an agency agreement with Old Republic National Title Insurance Company entitled “Agreement for Appointment of Policy-Issuing Agent.” As a policy issuing agent, Panella had the authority to issue commitments, title reports, binders, guaranties, title insurance policies, and other agreements/title insurance forms under which Old Republic agreed to assume liability for the condition of title covering real estate located in the State of Georgia. In July of 2010, Old Republic filed a complaint, and a number of amended complaints, against Panella for claims allegedly arising from numerous title insurance policies issued by Panella. Panella moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Old Republic’s claims on four of the policies were barred by OCGA § 9-3-24, the statute of limitation for claims based on written contracts.1 The trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment, and Old Republic appeals, alleging that its right to recover is pursuant to an indemnity provision, and, therefore, OCGA § 9-3-24 does not apply. We agree and reverse.

The standard for summary judgment is familiar and settled: summary judgment is warranted when the material facts, as shown by the pleadings and record evidence, are undisputed and these facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.2 We review an award of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the record, as well as all inferences that might reasonably be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.3

Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Darryl J. Panella LLC

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report