## Facts

- A title insurer retained a title abstracting company to prepare title abstracts for a real estate transaction.
- Relying on the abstracts, the insurer issued a title insurance policy to the purchasers and their lender.
- After closing, a previously existing judgment lien was discovered that had not been disclosed in the abstract.
- The insurer paid $75,000 to satisfy the lien under the policy.
- The insurer sued the abstracting company seeking damages tied to the missed lien.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The district court of appeal affirmed the dismissal.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review of the dismissal and affirmance.

## Issues

1. Whether the insurer’s complaint against the abstracting company stated a legally sufficient claim for damages arising from an omitted lien in a prepared abstract.
2. What liability framework, if any, applies between a title insurer and an abstractor retained to prepare title abstracts (contract, negligence, or another theory) at the pleading stage.
3. Whether dismissal was proper based solely on the pleadings given the alleged reliance and resulting payment by the insurer.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court issued a decision reviewing the lower courts’ dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and the appellate affirmance.
- The available record does not disclose whether the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, reversed, or modified the dismissal, or the precise basis for its disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the pleaded allegations, not the proof of those allegations.
- In disputes arising from allegedly erroneous title abstracts, potential theories may include contractual liability and/or tort liability based on alleged breach of a duty in preparing and supplying title information.
- The case addressed whether the pleaded allegations, including alleged reliance and loss tied to an undisclosed lien, could support a claim under Florida law; the specific rule adopted or applied is not ascertainable from the provided material.

## Conclusion

The case involved a title insurer’s attempt to recover from a retained abstractor after the insurer paid to resolve a lien allegedly missed in the abstract, with the Florida Supreme Court reviewing whether dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper; the final disposition and governing rule are not determinable from the provided record.


First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. First Title Serv. of the Fla. Keys, Inc., 457 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1984)