2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (Chicago Title Ins. Co.) (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 308f
2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (Chicago Title Ins. Co.) (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 308f [-- Cal.Rptr.3d --]2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (Chicago Title Ins. Co.) (2004)114 Cal.App.4th 308f , -- Cal.Rptr.3d --
[No. D042323.
Fourth Dist., Div. One.
Jan. 5, 2004.]
2,022 RANCH, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.
[Modification of opinion (113 Cal.App.4th 1377) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
THE COURT.-
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 5, 2003, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3 [113 Cal.App.4th 1382, advance report], immediately following the heading FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, add as footnote 1 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
1 Much of the factual background for this opinion has been taken from the allegations stated in 2,022 Ranch`s complaint, which, for purposes of resolving the legal issues raised in this petition, Chicago Title did not dispute in its brief filed on this petition. We recognize that Chicago Title reserves the right to contest the allegations of 2,022 Ranch`s complaint at trial and nothing in this opinion should be construed as adopting 2,022 Ranch`s allegations as proven facts.
2. On page 4, immediately following the first sentence of the first full paragraph [113 Cal.App.4th 1382, advance report, 2d full par.], add as footnote 2 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
2 Preliminary title reports or preliminary reports are merely reports on the status of title and are not themselves insurance policies that could provide the basis for a cause of action against a title company. (Ins. Code, ? 12340.11; Greenwald & Asimow, Cal. Practice Guide: Real Property Transactions (The Rutter Group 2003) ? 3:3, p. 3-2; Rosen v. Nations Title Ins. Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499-1500.) Cases and treatises use both terms to describe such reports (Greenwald & Asimow, Cal. Practice Guide: Real Property Transactions, supra, ? 3:3, p.3-2; Rosen v. Nations Title Ins. Co., supra, at pp. 1499-1500), and we use the term [114 Cal.App.4th 308g] preliminary title report in this opinion to describe the type of report defined in Insurance Code section 12340.11.
3. On page 5 [113 Cal.App.4th 1383, advance report], immediately following the second sentence of the first paragraph, add as footnote 3 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
3 In a petition for rehearing, Chicago Title asserted that it did not admit liability for breach of contract or bad faith and pointed to its answer to 2,022 Ranch`s second amended complaint, which it attached as an exhibit to the petition for rehearing. However, the record reflects that Chicago Title opposed the motion to compel on the basis the discovery sought was irrelevant because they admitted bad faith, the referee assigned to handle the discovery dispute found Chicago Title had admitted bad faith, and Chicago Title did not assert that it was still contesting its alleged bad faith in its respondent`s brief. Further, Chicago Title did not make its answer to the second amended complaint a part of the record on this petition. At any rate, as discussed in footnote 1, ante, we note that this statement is an allegation made by 2,022 Ranch, and we leave to the trial court resolution of the issue of what admissions were made by Chicago Title for purposes of trial.
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
