Yen v. Chicago Title Co. CA4/3

Filed 9/30/13 Yen v. Chicago Title Co. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANN CHI YEN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G047455

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00502362)

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Affirmed. Roberts and Roberts and Theodore K. Roberts for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fidelity National Law Group and Kevin R. Broersma for Defendant and Repsondent. * * *

Appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Finding no error, we affirm. I FACTS The verified first amended complaint alleges appellant Ann Chi Yen purchased a condominium unit located at 2516 North Tustin Avenue in Santa Ana on August 23, 2010. On that same day, she “took out a buyer‟s policy of Title insurance” from respondent Chicago Title Insurance Company. According to her pleading, after appellant made the purchase, she “discovered that there was a lawsuit pending in the Orange County Superior Court in case #05CC00047 concerning this property. [¶] . . . This lawsuit and subsequent judgment increased the homeowner‟s assessment on said condominium from $42-48 per month to $2,000 per month, leaving the condominium with no economic value whatsoever. [¶] . . . The Preliminary Title Report from the Defendants, and each of them, did not disclose the fact that litigation was pending concerning this property.” Other allegations in appellant‟s first amended complaint state: “Plaintiff ANN CHI YEN now has a property which is unsalable because of the defect in title and worthless because the $2,000 monthly lease amount is greater than the fair market rent on the property, rendering Plaintiff ANN CHI YEN with a total loss;” and, “Defendants, and each of them, breached this policy by not indemnifying Plaintiff ANN CHI YEN from the losses she sustained due to a lawsuit (OCSC Case #05CC00047) which destroyed all value to the property purchased.” Respondent demurred to the first amended complaint. Attached to both the first amended complaint and the demurrer is a copy of the insurance policy, which states: “In addition to the Exclusions, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys‟ fees and the expenses resulting from: [¶] . . . [¶] 5. A lease with certain terms, covenants,