## Facts

- Robert Manley agreed to purchase an unimproved parcel of land from Cost Control Marketing and Management, Inc. (CCM) for $36,000, to be conveyed “free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.”
- Before the August 25, 1988 closing, Manley arranged for title work and title insurance through Spectrum Abstract Corp. (Spectrum), a real estate abstractor and title-policy writing agency for Penn Title Insurance Co. (Penn Title).
- No interim title binder was issued before closing.
- Penn Title issued a title insurance policy shortly after closing (September 8, 1988), with Spectrum acting as Penn Title’s policy-writing agent.
- After the purchase, Manley learned that the property largely consisted of government-designated wetlands, which he claimed made the land effectively unimprovable.
- Manley filed a ten-count complaint against multiple defendants, including CCM, Spectrum, and Penn Title.
- As to Spectrum and Penn Title (Counts VII and VIII), Manley alleged they knew or should have known about the wetlands designation; that Spectrum failed to check appropriate records and failed to inform him of the risk; that Spectrum did not disclose it was a controlled group of CCM; and that Penn Title failed to warn him by issuing a binder before closing and failed to promptly disclose the wetlands issue.
- The title policy attached to the complaint contained exclusions for losses arising from governmental land-use regulation and, in Schedule B, a specific disclaimer of liability for wetlands designation by a governmental authority.
- The trial court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed, among other things, Counts VII and VIII (the claims against Spectrum and Penn Title), while other counts remained pending against other defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the Superior Court could review a trial court order that dismissed some counts of a multi-count complaint when the dismissed counts eliminated all claims against certain defendants (Spectrum and Penn Title), but other counts remained pending against other defendants.
2. Whether Manley stated viable claims against Spectrum and Penn Title for failing to discover or disclose wetlands status when the title insurance policy expressly excluded losses arising from governmental regulations affecting land use and specifically disclaimed liability for wetlands designation.

## Decision

- The Superior Court held it had jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Counts VII and VIII because that portion of the order finally disposed of Manley’s claims against Spectrum and Penn Title; the remainder of the order affecting other counts/defendants was interlocutory and not reviewable at that time.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of Counts VII and VIII.
- The court did not rest its ruling on the broad proposition that wetlands status can never affect title; instead, it affirmed based on the policy language attached to the complaint.
- Because the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for loss caused by governmental regulations restricting the use or enjoyment of land and expressly stated that the company assumed no liability for wetlands designation by any governmental authority, Manley’s wetlands-based claims fell within excluded risks.
- Given those exclusions, the policy barred recovery against Penn Title and Spectrum for the alleged failure to find, disclose, or warn about wetlands designation.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania, an order dismissing some but not all counts is generally interlocutory; however, dismissal of a complaint as to one of several defendants is final and immediately appealable as to that defendant.
- When an insurance policy is attached to a complaint, a court may consider the policy’s terms in ruling on preliminary objections raising legal insufficiency.
- Clear and unambiguous exclusions in an insurance contract are enforced as written, and a plaintiff cannot obtain coverage (or impose liability tied to coverage) for risks the policy expressly excludes.
- Exclusions for governmental laws and regulations restricting land use, and specific exclusions addressing wetlands designation, bar claims seeking damages arising from those regulatory conditions, even when framed as failure to search, warn, or disclose in connection with issuing title insurance.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court reviewed only the portion of the trial court’s order that ended the case against Spectrum and Penn Title, treated that portion as a final order, and affirmed dismissal because the title insurance policy’s express exclusions—covering governmental land-use regulation and specifically wetlands designation—foreclosed Manley’s claims premised on wetlands-related loss.


Manley v. Cost Control Marketing and Management, 583 A.2d 442 (1990)