Seventh Circuit Limits Construction Lender’s Use of Title Insurance Policy to Cover Construction Liens Created by Lender’s Cutoff of Funding

01 July 2015 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

In a recent decision written by Judge Sykes, affirming a decision from the Western District of Wisconsin, in an issue governed by Wisconsin law, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a title insurer has no duty to indemnify a construction lender for mechanics’ liens arising from the lender’s decision to halt its funding.

The court held in BB Syndication Services, Inc. v. First American Title Insurance Co., No. 13-2785 (Mar. 12, 2015), that, when liens arise as a result of insufficient development funds, the lender—which has a duty to investigate and monitor the construction project—has in effect “created” those liens when it stops disbursing funds.

The “West Edge” project in Kansas City, Missouri ran into trouble with cost overruns early. When the developer would not cover the shortfall, the contractors walked off the site, and BB Syndication (the project’s construction lender) froze its regular disbursements.

The contractors filed liens, and the developer’s bankruptcy soon followed. BB wound up on the short end of the stick in bankruptcy court, since the contractors’ liens received priority. It recovered only $150,000 on its $61 million claim—for a whopping 0.2 cents on the dollar.

BB then tried to shift its losses to its title insurer, but the insurer denied coverage. Exclusion 3(a) of BB’s policy provides that those liens that are “created, suffered, assumed or agreed to” by the insured lender will not be covered under the title policy. Cutting off funding to the project, the insurer argued, “created” the contractors’ liens that outflanked BB’s own claim in bankruptcy.

The Seventh Circuit sided with the insurer. Pointing to loan documents that gave the lender broad rights to monitor the project and significant discretion, the court explained that title insurance does not protect construction lenders against the risk of cost overruns, especially where the lender has the ability and duty to monitor the project. The court thus placed the risk of loss squarely on the lender.

There are ways, however, as the court pointed out, that a construction lender can address this issue in the future: (1) negotiate for the so-called “Seattle endorsement,” a promise from the title company not to invoke Exclusion 3(a) for liens arising from insufficient funds; (2) take steps to decrease the likelihood of default and non-payment by the borrower (e.g., obtain a third-party guarantee or a performance bond); or (3) remain vigilant and keep close tabs on the progress of construction.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.