LOFLIN v. Of which Chicago Title Insurance Company is Petitioner. (2020)

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in Loflin v. BMP Development, L.P., 427 S.C. 580, 832 S.E.2d 294 (Ct. App. 2019). We adopt the court of appeals’ well-reasoned opinion reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago). We modify the opinion only insofar as Chicago's challenge to the court of appeals’ finding concerning contractual incompetency. The two sentences in the court of appeals’ opinion referring to contractual incompetency are vacated.¹ We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ decision as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The court of appeals’ two references to contractual incompetency were: (1) “We also note this item covers incompetency, which would fit [the Loflins’] allegation that Balsam recorded the wrong plat, i.e., the December 10, 2001 plat, when it should have recorded the February 6, 2002 plat.”; and (2) “Hence, the Preserve Road encroachment and [the Loflins’] loss in acreage fall within items 1, 3, and 14 of the Policy's ‘Covered Title Risks,’ i.e., ‘Someone else owns an interest in your title,’ ‘Forgery, fraud, duress, incompetency, incapacity, or impersonation,’ (emphases added) and ‘Other defects, liens, or encumbrances.’ ” (Internal alteration marks omitted).

PER CURIAM:

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.