(DOWNLOAD) "Pacific Coast Title Insurance Company V." by Supreme Court Of Utah " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Pacific Coast Title Insurance Company V.
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 20, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
CROCKETT, Justice. This case is cognate to Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Hartford Accident
Indemnity Co., 7 Utah 2d 366, 325 P.2d 899, and the background facts set forth therein are pertinent here. The plaintiff,
Pacific Coast Title Company, was involved in the transaction because it wrote the policies of title insurance on the homes
constructed in the Morningside Heights Subdivision. The contract required it to issue a policy on each home before the mortgage
was accepted and the loan approved by Prudential Federal Savings Company so money could be advanced under the progress payment
plan. This necessitated the issuance of policies before the rights of materialmen and laborers had been concluded. The hazard
of such procedure was obvious to the parties. It was for that reason that the plaintiff Title Company was made obligee on
Hartford's bond which recited that it would be saved harmless from defaults on the part of the contractor, Cassady Co., Inc.,
one of whose contractual duties was to 'keep and maintain each lot or building site free and clear of labor and material liens.'
Because of Cassady's failures to meet payments to its subcontractors, laborers and materialmen, a number of them filed and
sought to foreclose liens against the homes. Plaintiff Title Company, in accordance with its commitment to keep title to the
properties unencumbered, engaged counsel to interpose defenses to the foreclosure of the liens; eventually settlement was
arranged and they were paid. The basis of the judgment here is for reimbursement for attorney's fees and costs it incurred
in defending against foreclosure of the liens. The attack Hartford makes upon the judgment is that plaintiff's expenses for attorney's fees should not have been allowed
because they are not generally recoverable unless expressly provided for by contract or authorized by statute. 1 That such
is the general rule we agree. But it applies to claims for attorney's fees within the action itself, and not to situations
such as the instant one.