## Facts

- Ollie Gates purchased a 480-acre tract in Torrance County, New Mexico (Jan. 9, 1978) and obtained a $75,000 title insurance policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company.
- The policy insured against loss “as of the date of the Policy” from specified title risks, including “lack of a right of access to and from the land.”
- At purchase, Gates used an “east road” (Halderman road) connecting the land to a gravel road; he believed it was a county road.
- About 18 months later, the east road was blocked by a chain, and the adjoining landowner asserted it was private and under his exclusive control.
- Chicago Title asserted there was alternative access by a “west road”; after the east road closure, Gates used it but described it as an extremely dangerous, rocky path, roughly twice the distance from the highway as the east route.
- Gates claimed the closure of the east road and the condition of the west route meant he lacked an insured “right of access.”

## Issues

1. Whether a title insurance policy insuring against “lack of a right of access” covers the physical adequacy or usability of access routes, or only the existence of a legally enforceable right of access.
2. Whether evidence of a difficult or dangerous route is sufficient to prove “lack of a right of access” when some legal access exists.
3. Whether a post-policy road closure establishes a covered “lack of access” when the policy insures against loss “as of the date of the Policy.”

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Chicago Title.
- The court held the policy insures against absence of a legal right of access, not against the condition, convenience, or passability of the route.
- Because some legal right of access existed via the west route, Gates failed as a matter of law to prove a covered lack of access.
- The later barricading of the east road did not establish a covered defect “as of the date of the Policy” absent proof that no legal access existed at issuance.

## Legal Principles

- Title insurance for “lack of a right of access” protects only against the absence of a legally cognizable, enforceable access right; it does not insure the physical quality of roads or trails.
- The insurer is not required to investigate or guarantee whether a legally available access way is safe, convenient, or passable by vehicle.
- When the evidence shows some legal access exists, proof that the route is steep, narrow, or dangerous does not establish covered loss for “lack of access.”
- Policy language limiting coverage to conditions “as of the date of the Policy” generally excludes later developments that affect use of an access route, unless they reflect a title defect existing at issuance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed JNOV for the insurer because the policy’s “right of access” coverage turned on the existence of any legal access, and the insured’s evidence went to the physical difficulty of the available route and a later road closure rather than a lack of legal access at the policy date.


Gates v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 813 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)