Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Florida, 390 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Florida, 390 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jose Fernandez v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Etc. (fladistctapp, 2025-02-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jose Fernandez v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Co. of Fla., 390 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). “[T]itle insurance is not casualty insurance.” Lawyers Title Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jose Fernandez v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Co. of Fla., 390 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). “[T]itle insurance is not casualty insurance.” Lawyers Title Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chicago Title Ins. v. Jen
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla., 390 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nourachi v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Title insurance, by contrast, is a ‘‘guaranty that the search was accurate and that it expresses the quality of the title shown by the record.” Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla., 390 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morton v. ATTORNEYS'TITLE INS. FUND, INC. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp. v. D.S.C. of Newark Enters., Inc. 544 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (stating that title insurance was developed and is a successful business because examination of record title is "both an esoteric and a painstaking process" requiring considerable expertise); Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla., 390 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (defining title insurance as a guaranty that a search in the chain of title is accurate and expresses the quality of the title reflected in the record).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morton v. Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp. v. D.S.C. of Newark Enters., Inc. 544 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (stating that title insurance was developed and is a successful business because examination of record title is “both an esoteric and a painstaking process” requiring considerable expertise); Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla., 390 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (defining title insurance as a guaranty that a search in the chain of title is accurate and expresses the quality of the title reflected in the record).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riordan v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
D.N.M. · 2005 · confidence medium
Co., 813 S.W.2d 10, 11-12 (Mo.Ct.App.1991); Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Florida, 390 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla.Ct.App.1980); Title & Trust Co. of Florida v. Barrows, 381 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Fla.Ct.App.1979); Mafetone v. Forest Manor Homes, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 566, 567 , 310 N.Y.S.2d 17 (N.Y.A.D.1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Magna Enterprises, Inc. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Co. (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) 813 S.W.2d 10 , 11-12 [insured had right of alternate access over difficult, treacherous “goat path”]; Krause v. Title & Trust Co. of Florida (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1980) 390 So.2d 805, 806 [insured had right of access via road that was impassible without substantial clay and rock fill]; Title & Trust Co. of Florida v. Barrows (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) 381 So.2d 1088, 1090 [insured had right of access via street that was flooded by tides in the spring and fall].) Magna takes solace in Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc. (1975) 288 N.C. 122 [ 217 S.E.2d 55…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
O. James KRAUSE, Eilene L. Krause, His Wife, and David W. Beane, Appellants,
v.
TITLE & TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
79-593/T2-19.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec 3, 1980.
390 So. 2d 805
Frank D. Upchurch, Jr..
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Sally Dee Kest of Graham, Markel, Scott, Marlowe, Appleton & McDonough, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

C. John Coniglio of John Coniglio, P.A., Wildwood, for appellee.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

Appellants, O. James Krause, Eilene L. Krause, his wife, and David W. Beane, appeal from a judgment which denied their recovery of fees and costs incurred in an earlier suit to establish an access easement (way of necessity).[1] Appellee Title & Trust Company of Florida had insured the title to the lands involved, but refused to participate[*806] in the suit to establish the easement.[2] Appellants then sued to recover their expenses.

The controlling question is whether appellants had access to their property under the terms of the title insurance policy. We hold that they did and affirm.

A title insurance policy contemplates a search of the chain of title, an opinion by an expert of what the search reveals and a guaranty that the search was accurate and that it expresses the quality of the title shown by the record. 1 Fla.Jur.2d Abstracts § 38 (1977). Absent a specific undertaking to that effect, it does not presume to insure against infirmities not of record. See McDaniel v. Lawyers' Title Guaranty Fund, 327 So.2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). See also § 624.608, Fla. Stat. (1979).

In the present case, the same judge had tried the earlier access suit. He states that all parties had agreed that there was "legal" access and that the only question was whether such access was "reasonable and practicable" for purposes of establishing an implied grant of necessity. The quality of a particular access (the subject matter of the original suit) would have been discoverable only upon a physical examination of the property or a detailed survey. The policy here specifically excepted any facts revealed by an accurate survey. The physical condition of the existing access was easily ascertainable by a simple inspection of the site by the purchasers. As the title company insured the quality of the title as shown by the record and there was access of record, it was not required to aid in the suit by appellants Krause and Beane to establish a grant of necessity.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

1 § 704.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1979).
2 The court in this earlier suit found that appellants had "legal" access to their land, but it was not passable by ordinary passenger vehicles without a substantial amount of clay or rock fill. § 704.03, Fla. Stat. (1979).