Justice Charles J. Markey
Gomez, a property owner, was issued a title insurance policy for $175,000 from Fidelity insuring against title defects. After Gomez began construction, he discovered a defect in title preventing completion of the project. He claimed the defect consisted of an encroachment by several inches of a neighbor’s structure onto the subject property, not just the one inch mentioned in the policy’s exceptions from coverage. Gomez presented a claim to Fidelity for $175,000, but they refused to pay more than $6,000. Gomez computed his damages as $341,000, estimating the appraiser’s estimated value of the property if the new attempted construction was successful. Fidelity moved for dismissal of Gomez’s complaint, including his claim for breach of contract. Gomez sought to recover for actual and consequential damages. Fidelity argued the proper measure of indemnity was the difference between the value of the property without the title defect and the value with the defect at the time plaintiff discovered it. The court agreed, noting Gomez’s complaint for breach was based on premises that were contrary to the law, dismissing same. Further, it stated the subject policy excluded consequential damages.
