FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 01 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CENTURION PROPERTIES III, LLC; No. 13-35692
SMI GROUP XIV, LLC,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05130-RMP
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska company,
Defendant-Appellee.
CENTURION PROPERTIES III, LLC; No. 13-35725
SMI GROUP XIV, LLC,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05130-RMP
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska company,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 2, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Submission Vacated July 16, 2015
Resubmitted August 26, 2016
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Centurion Properties III, LLC and SMI Group XIV, LLC (together,
“Plaintiffs”) allege that Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”)
breached a duty of care to Plaintiffs by negligently recording certain liens against
their property, in violation of Plaintiffs’ loan agreement. See Centurion Props. III,
LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 793 F.3d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). “Chicago Title
served as the escrow, closing agent, and title insurer for the original purchase [of
the property]” and thus admitted that it could be charged with actual knowledge of
the loan agreement. Id. at 1088-89. Nevertheless, Chicago Title argued that
because Plaintiffs were third parties to its agreement with the insured, it owed them
no duty of care. Id. at 1091. The district court agreed, granting summary
judgment to Chicago Title. Id. at 1089. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
We concluded that “whether a title company owes a duty of care to third
parties to refrain from negligently recording legal instruments” was a matter of
Washington common law. Id. at 1090. Yet, upon review, we were unable to find
2
any Washington case expressly delineating the duty of care. Id. Moreover, the
answer was not clear from Washington’s precedents. Concluding that there was no
way accurately to predict how Washington courts would rule, id., we certified the
following question to the Washington Supreme Court: “Does a title company owe
a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments?” Id. at 1088,
1092; see also Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020.
On July 14, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court answered our question
with an unequivocal and unanimous “No.” Certification from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Centurion Props. III, LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.,
375 P.3d 651, 653 (Wash. 2016). Taking into account “logic, common sense,
justice, policy, and precedent, as applied to the facts of the case,” the court
concluded that “a title insurance company does not owe a duty of care to third
parties in the recording of legal instruments.” Id. at 654.
In our certification order, we indicated that the Washington Supreme Court’s
answer would be dispositive:
If, as the district court reasoned, Chicago Title owed no duty, then we
would affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Chicago Title. If Chicago Title did owe a duty of care, then summary
judgment would be inappropriate at this stage. In that event, we likely
would remand to the district court for a determination in the first
instance as to causation, which the parties also dispute.
3
Centurion, 793 F.3d at 1090. Thus, the Washington Supreme Court’s answer ends
this case. Because, under Washington law, Chicago Title owed no duty of care to
Plaintiffs, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Chicago
Title.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4