Londen Land Company, LLC v. Title Resources Guaranty Compa

MEMORANDUM

Londen Land Company, LLC (Londen) appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Title Resources Guarantee Company (TRGC) and denial of Lon-den’s motion for relief from judgment. We review the summary judgment de novo, Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp., 51 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir.1995), and the denial of the motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion, Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court correctly held that Londen’s title insurance terminated because Londen did not retain “an estate or interest in the land,” as the term is used in Londen’s policy. See Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. DGG & CAR, Inc., 218 Ariz. 262, 183 P.3d 513, 515 (2008) (interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law). Schedule A of the policy provides that “[t]he estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Schedule covered by this Policy is: FEE SIMPLE.” When Londen conveyed the land to its wholly owned limited liability company, Florence Ventures, LLC (Florence), in fee simple, Londen’s policy terminated because Londen conveyed the entirety of its estate or interest.…