## Facts

- Walker Rogge, Inc., a real estate developer, agreed to purchase a tract in Pittsgrove Township, New Jersey, believing it contained about 19 acres based on a prior survey.
- The deed conveyed the property by metes and bounds and did not state any acreage.
- At closing, Walker Rogge bought an owner’s title insurance policy from Chelsea Title & Guaranty Company insuring against loss from defects, liens, or encumbrances on title.
- The policy contained a standard “survey exception” excluding coverage for discrepancies, boundary conflicts, shortages in area, encroachments, and other matters that an accurate survey and inspection would disclose.
- Years later, a new survey for an adjacent purchase revealed the original parcel contained only about 13 acres, a shortage of roughly six acres.
- Walker Rogge received title to all land described in the deed’s metes-and-bounds description; the dispute concerned the parcel’s actual acreage as compared to expectations.
- Walker Rogge sued Chelsea for policy benefits and asserted negligence claims against Chelsea and two surveyors involved with the surveys.

## Issues

1. Whether an acreage deficiency, when the insured receives good title to the full metes-and-bounds description, is a covered “defect in title” under an owner’s title insurance policy.
2. Whether the policy’s survey exception bars coverage for a shortage in area revealed by an accurate survey.
3. Whether the title insurer may be liable in negligence to the insured for failing to prevent or disclose an acreage shortage on these facts.
4. Whether the trial court properly dismissed negligence claims against the surveyors for lack of expert testimony on the professional standard of care.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Chelsea and held Chelsea was not liable under the title policy for the acreage deficiency.
- The Court held the survey exception applied to the shortage in area and barred recovery under the policy.
- The Court rejected imposing negligence liability on Chelsea for the acreage shortfall.
- The Court modified and remanded the judgment in favor of the surveyors for further proceedings.
- The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Title insurance is a contract of indemnity against defects in title; it does not insure the quantity of land conveyed unless the policy expressly provides such coverage.
- When the insured acquires all land described by the deed’s legal description, an acreage shortfall due to mistaken assumptions about area is not, by itself, a defect in title.
- A clear survey exception excluding shortages in area and other matters discoverable by an accurate survey and inspection is enforceable and bars coverage for acreage discrepancies.
- A title insurer’s duties to an insured are primarily contractual; absent special circumstances, courts will not expand those duties in tort to guarantee the purchaser’s expectations about acreage.

## Conclusion

The court held that an acreage shortage discovered after closing was not covered by an owner’s title policy where the insured received title to the full metes-and-bounds description, the policy contained an enforceable survey exception for shortages in area, and the insurer owed no tort duty to protect the purchaser’s quantity expectations; claims involving the surveyors required further proceedings on remand.


Walker Rogge, Inc. v. Chelsea Title & Guar. Co., 116 N.J. 517, 562 A.2d 208 (N.J. 1989)