65 Butterfield v. Chicago Title Insurance
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
J.Appellant 65 Butterfield, a California Limited partnership (Butterfield), brought this action on a title insurance policy issued by respondent Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago) after the County of Riverside (County) claimed an easement on property owned by Butterfield. The lower court ruled there was no coverage under the policy, and, in any event, the statute of limitations had expired. The court also awarded Chicago its expert costs and attorney fees pursuant to section 998 and former section 1021.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We affirm the judgment based on…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Elkins v. DerbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Britton v. GirardiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Lee v. Fidelity National Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Reid v. Cuprum SA, De C.U.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Smeaton v. Fidelity National TitleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.