No "dual agency" for this title agent.

Obtained summary judgment in a professional liability case whereby the plaintiff, a title insurer, sued his title agent, who had conducted two discrete real estate closings as settlement agent. The plaintiff alleged that, in conducting the two closings, the title agent failed to ensure the first lien priority status of the plaintiff's insured-lender, resulting in several pieces of underlying litigation challenging the insured-lender's title and priority. The plaintiff employed expert testimony to support its position that no agency relationship existed between the title agent and the lender, or that a "dual agency" existed. The plaintiff sought damages in the total amount of $430,000, representing amounts it paid in settlement of such litigation, plus attorneys' fees the plaintiff incurred in defending the litigation. At mediation, the plaintiff's final demand was $350,000. Representing the title agent, a motion for summary judgment was filed, based on the successful argument that in executing two releases resolving the underlying litigation, the plaintiff expressly released the lender and its "agents and representatives" from liability. The court relied upon evidence that the lender retained the client to handle the two closings and, therefore, constituted an agent and representative of the lender.