The following is from the DIRT List-serve and may be of interest to some here:
Subject: [DIRT] Unpublished opinion: $48 million dollar judgment affirmed against Chicago Title
From: John L Davidson
Date: 8/23/2012 12:07 PM
To: DIRT@LISTSERV.UMKC.EDU
My Friends:
It has been brought to my attention that the Missouri Court of Appeals in St. Louis has affirmed, without a published opinion, a $48,000,000 million dollar judgment against Chicago Title arising out of a breach of a contract to provide a letter report. Correct, a Texas size judgment, finally, in a Missouri case.
Correct: $48 million, affirmed, with an unpublished opinion, reading:
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
Chicago Title writes in its opening paragraph in his motion for rehearing:
1. With interest, the judgment against Chicago Title now exceeds $50 million–the third largest judgment ever affirmed in the history of the State of Missouri. Chicago Title finds it virtually incomprehensible that any appellate court would affirm a judgment of that magnitude in an unpublished opinion.
The thought that a Court would spend more time writing opinions on appeals of criminal defendants who face loss of life or death, as opposed to the gross amount of a judgment against the largest title insurance company in the world suggests to me that from time to time we need to have trial lawyers post about persuasion: appeals are not about money, there are about injustice.
Do not send me questions, for I have no answers.
What I know about the case can be found on my agency law blog discussion of disclaiming the agent's implied warranty of workmanlike services.
For those of you who want to speculate you may want to know:
First, in Missouri we have a non-partisan court plan which draws the constant ire of the WSJ (what with the WSJ say about this case, as it was a business v business case, having nothing to do with tort deform?).
Second, the plaintiff was represented by a retired court of appeals judge and a retired supreme court judge
Third, judges in Missouri may not believe they are fairly compensated. Only recently, three other supreme court judges have retired and entered private practice or returned to teaching. The last judge rushed his appointment so that his replacement would be named under the non-partisan plan.
Sincerely yours,
John
John L. Davidson, Esq.
% John L. Davidson, P.C.
13975 Manchester, Suite 19
Saint Louis, Missouri 63011
314.725.2898
636.927.9395 (facsimile)
jldavidson@att.net
From a summary of the original lawsuit:
According to the lawsuit, Abengoa Bioenergy U.S. Holding Inc. planned to build an ethanol plant in Kansas. As part of that process, the company sought zoning and permit approval from the City Council in the town of Colwich, Kan., and was required to notify affected residents of the plan to build the plant.
Abengoa hired Chicago Title to handle identifying such residents for the city to ensure they were notified.
Abengoa sued Chicago Title in 2008, alleging it botched the job and didn't provide the city with a complete list of residents. As a result, Abengoa alleged, some opposed residents challenged the plan in late 2006, and the company had to withdraw its zoning and permit requests and build in Illinois instead.
"If you don't give notice correctly, then everything afterwards is void," said attorney Grant Davis, who was lead counsel for Abengoa.
When residents sued over the plan, claiming they didn't get proper notice, Chicago Title denied making an error and said their list was correct, said Davis, of Davis, Bethune & Jones in Kansas City.
But as the case progressed, he said, an agent hired by Chicago Title to do the search said in a deposition that the company knew in May 2006 that the list was incomplete.
Abengoa and its subsidiaries claimed the delays led to lost profits, increased costs and other damages. Building in Illinois, Davis said, meant higher labor and construction costs, plus the grain itself that's turned into ethanol is more expensive. In Kansas, the company planned to use milo, but in Illinois, it uses corn, he said.
Chicago Title denied in its answer to the suit that it failed to identify affected residents as required. Among other things, the title company also alleged that various other factors played a role, such as that Abengoa didn't obtain its water permits in a timely manner.
By the time of trial, Davis said, Chicago Title acknowledged making a mistake, but argued it wasn't negligent and that it owed less than $50,000 to cover studies and other initial work that Abengoa had to redo to resubmit its Kansas proposal, which it ultimately abandoned after residents challenged it again. The title company didn't respond to Abengoa's settlement demand, he said.
The jury returned the $48.4 million verdict after a nearly two- week trial.
I've always liked Chicago Title, but if they screwed up...
Sort of reminds me of the company that offered rustproofing for cars, with a warranty: If the underside of the car ever rusted, they would refund the cost of the rustproofing. They evidently thought that was a great warranty. The courts held otherwise.
