Legal Opinion · Dissent

Henderson v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 2006No. 2004-0574Published

1DissentLanzinger, J.

{¶ 47} I agree with the majority that a title insurance policy issued in response to an unqualified request for coverage but not delivered until after the closing is binding. But I dissent because, in my view, the evidence establishes that an arbitration clause is a usual and customary term in the 1992 American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) owner’s policy for title insurance.

{¶ 48} As a general rule, federal and state courts encourage arbitration to resolve disputes. ABM Farms v. Woods (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 498, 500, 692 N.E.2d 574. On the federal level, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. ABM Farms, Inc. v. WoodsOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Avemco v. EavesOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API