[Download] "Pacific Coast Title Insurance Company V." by Supreme Court Of Utah ~ eBook 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.