Maxie O'Neal Price, III v. Chicago Title Insurance Company

The recent filing of *Maxie O'Neal Price, III v. Chicago Title Insurance Company* in the Eleventh Circuit, though designated "not for publication," highlights the persistent legal challenges surrounding title insurance disputes. This article explores the foundational principles of title insurance, its scope of coverage, and the common grounds for litigation, including claims of breach of contract and bad faith against insurers. Drawing on statutory frameworks and case law from the Eleventh Circuit's constituent states—Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—it examines the distinct elements and procedural requirements for asserting such claims. Practitioners are reminded of the critical importance of policy language, the duty of good faith, and the varying state-specific standards for proving insurer misconduct, particularly given the non-precedential nature of unpublished decisions.

The landscape of real estate transactions is inherently complex, with the assurance of clear title being paramount. Title insurance serves as a crucial safeguard, protecting property owners and lenders against financial loss stemming from defects in title that existed prior to the policy's issuance. The recent filing of *Maxie O'Neal Price, III v. Chicago Title Insurance Company* in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, bearing case number 25-13568 and filed on July 8, 2026, underscores the ongoing relevance and contentious nature of disputes within this specialized area of insurance law. While this particular decision is designated "not for publication," its existence signals the continued litigation activity involving title insurers and the enduring legal questions surrounding policy interpretation, coverage, and insurer obligations.

This article aims to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive overview of the legal framework governing title insurance disputes, particularly those involving allegations of breach of contract and bad faith. By examining the statutory and doctrinal underpinnings in the states comprising the Eleventh Circuit—Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—we delineate the common issues that arise in such litigation. Understanding these principles is vital for attorneys representing either insured parties seeking redress for title defects or insurers defending against claims of non-performance or misconduct.

Title insurance, unlike traditional casualty insurance, protects against past events that could affect current or future property ownership, rather than future occurrences. It indemnifies against financial loss from defects in title to real property and the invalidity or unenforceability of mortgage loans. The American Land Title Association (ALTA) develops standardized policy forms, such as the ALTA Owner's Policy and ALTA Loan Policy, which are widely adopted across the United States and form the basis of most title insurance contracts. These policies typically cover risks such as undisclosed liens, unpaid taxes, errors in public records, forged deeds, and unknown heirs asserting ownership claims.

In the Eleventh Circuit, comprising Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, title insurance is subject to state-specific regulations concerning rates, agent licensing, and policy forms. For instance, Florida's title insurance industry is governed by Chapter 627 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 69O-186 of the Florida Administrative Code, which regulate premiums and prohibit unfair practices. Similarly, Alabama's Title Insurance Act is codified in Chapter 25 of Title 27, Code of Alabama 1975, with regulations addressing agent qualifications and business entity requirements. Georgia also regulates title insurance rates, requiring companies to file their published rates with the Georgia Insurance Commissioner. Beyond contractual claims for coverage, insureds in these states may also pursue claims for bad faith against their title insurers, alleging that the insurer failed to act fairly and honestly in handling a claim.

Disputes involving title insurance often center on the interpretation of policy language, particularly concerning covered risks and exclusions. The Eleventh Circuit has, for example, affirmed that title insurance policies may preclude coverage for defects known to the policyholder before purchasing the policy, emphasizing the importance of the insured's knowledge. Common issues litigated against title insurers like Chicago Title Insurance Company include alleged failures to discover and disclose title defects, improper denial of claims, and inadequate defense against third-party challenges to title.

Claims of bad faith against title insurers vary significantly across the Eleventh Circuit states. In Florida, a statutory cause of action for bad faith exists under Florida Statute § 624.155. Before initiating a lawsuit, an insured must provide the insurer with a 60-day Civil Remedy Notice, allowing the insurer an opportunity to cure the alleged violation. Florida law defines bad faith as an insurer's failure to attempt in good faith to settle claims when it could and should have done so, acting fairly and honestly. Damages can be substantial, potentially including the entire judgment against the policyholder if the insurer's failure to settle within policy limits results in an excess judgment.

Georgia also provides a statutory basis for bad faith claims under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6, which allows for penalties of up to 50% of the liability for the loss, plus reasonable attorney's fees, if an insurer's refusal to pay a valid claim is found to be in bad faith. A critical prerequisite in Georgia is the submission of a written demand for payment, after which the insurer has 60 days to respond before a bad faith action can be pursued. Alabama, in contrast, recognizes a common law tort of bad faith, which sets a high bar for liability. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the insurer lacked any reasonably legitimate or arguable reason for refusing to pay the claim and had actual knowledge of this absence, or intentionally failed to determine if a legitimate reason existed. Negligence or mistake alone is insufficient; a "conscious intent to injure" may be required. Damages in Alabama bad faith cases can include mental anguish and punitive damages, in addition to contract damages.

The *Maxie O'Neal Price, III* case, while not for publication, likely navigates these established principles. Unpublished decisions, though not precedential, can offer insights into how courts apply existing law to specific factual scenarios. They serve as a reminder to practitioners of the ongoing need to meticulously review policy terms, understand state-specific bad faith standards, and adhere to procedural requirements when litigating against title insurance companies.

The *Maxie O'Neal Price, III v. Chicago Title Insurance Company* case, though unpublished, serves as a timely reminder for legal practitioners of the complexities inherent in title insurance litigation within the Eleventh Circuit. Attorneys must remain vigilant in scrutinizing title insurance policies, particularly the specific coverages and exclusions, which are often based on standardized ALTA forms but can be subject to state-specific endorsements and interpretations. The varying standards for proving bad faith across Florida, Georgia, and Alabama—ranging from statutory mandates with specific notice requirements to a high common law bar requiring intentional misconduct—necessitate a tailored approach to litigation strategy.

Practitioners should meticulously document all communications and actions related to a title insurance claim, ensuring strict adherence to statutory notice periods, such as Florida's Civil Remedy Notice or Georgia's 60-day demand letter, before initiating litigation. Furthermore, understanding the nuances of how each state defines and permits recovery for bad faith, including the availability of punitive damages and damages for mental anguish, is crucial for effective client representation. As real estate markets continue to evolve, so too will the nature of title disputes, making a thorough grasp of these foundational legal principles indispensable for all legal professionals involved in property law and insurance litigation.