ARTICLE
10 September 2015

Morris Agreement Ruled Unenforceable In Mechanics' Lien Dispute

DW
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Contributor
Dickinson Wright is a general practice business law firm with more than 475 attorneys among more than 40 practice areas and 16 industry groups. With 19 offices across the U.S. and in Toronto, we offer clients exceptional quality and client service, value for fees, industry expertise and business acumen.
A "Morris agreement" between a title insured and mechanics lien claimants was unenforceable, because the agreement wasn't an arms-length transaction, and the settlement left the insured without any risk of personal liability.
United States Insurance
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A "Morris agreement" between a title insured and mechanics lien claimants was unenforceable, because the agreement wasn't an arms-length transaction, and the settlement left the insured without any risk of personal liability, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Centerpoint Mechanic Lien Claims, LLC. In doing so, the court passed on the opportunity to decide whether title insurance policies can be subject to a "Morris agreement."

In a "Morris agreement" – a type of settlement that derives from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1987 decision in United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morris – an insured independently settles with a third-party claimant, assigning to the claimant his rights against his insurer, who agreed to defend the insured while reserving its right to challenge coverage under the insured's policy.

In Centerpoint, the agreement in question was between the insured title holder and a mechanics' lien claimant that was actually controlled by the insured, and essentially removed all of the insured's liability. In effect, the court noted, the agreement allowed the claimants to "seek reimbursement under the insurance contract, and if appropriate, to pursue a potential bad faith claim based on [the insurer's] allegedly improper reservation of rights. Given these circumstances, the settlement agreement ... was not a compliant Morris agreement."

Fidelity had also argued that, as a matter of law, a title insurance policy holder may not enter a Morris agreement. Fidelity and amicus curiae American Land Title Association asserted that, unlike the third-party insurance claim at issue in Morris, a title policy provides insurance for a first-party property loss, meaning a loss caused by alleged title defects that could lessen the value of the insureds' property. Unfortunately, the court refused to address this argument because even assuming Morris applies to title insurance claims, the settlement agreement was not a compliant Morris agreement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
10 September 2015

Morris Agreement Ruled Unenforceable In Mechanics' Lien Dispute

United States Insurance
Contributor
Dickinson Wright is a general practice business law firm with more than 475 attorneys among more than 40 practice areas and 16 industry groups. With 19 offices across the U.S. and in Toronto, we offer clients exceptional quality and client service, value for fees, industry expertise and business acumen.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More