GREENBERG v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY CO. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An insured party sued a title insurer in tort for failing to discover title defects. The court held the insurer had no tort duty to search for defects; its only obligation was the contractual duty to indemnify for covered losses under the policy.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a title insurance policy is a contract of indemnity, not a service contract for a title search. Therefore, a title insurer generally owes no independent tort duty to the insured for a negligent title search.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Martin Greenberg purchased four condominiums after receiving title commitments and subsequently issued title insurance policies from defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Co., through its agent, Southeastern Wisconsin Title Company. Greenberg later discovered undisclosed liens and encumbrances that rendered the titles unmarketable, preventing him from selling the properties. As a result, the properties were foreclosed upon, and significant deficiency judgments were entered against him. Greenberg sued Stewart and Southeastern, alleging breach of contract and, more significantly, tort claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The basis for the tort claims was that the defendants owed a common law duty to conduct a reasonably diligent title search and disclose any defects found. The trial court dismissed the tort claims, holding that the relationship was purely contractual and did not give rise to tort liability.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the issuance of a title commitment and insurance policy create a common law tort duty for a title insurer and its agent to search for and disclose title defects, separate from the contractual duty to indemnify?
No. A title insurance company and its agent are not liable in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate v
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the issuance of a title commitment and insurance policy create a common law tort duty for a title insurer and its agent to search for and disclose title defects, separate from the contractual duty to indemnify?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the distinction between contract and tort duties in Wisconsin, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
For a cause of action in tort to exist in a contractual Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat c
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A title insurance policy is a contract of indemnity, not a