Andrew Crisman and Renee Crisman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company

Background

In 2013, Andrew and Renee Crisman purchased 120 acres of real property in Kanabec County, Minnesota, along with a title insurance policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company. Title insurance protects property owners against losses arising from defects in the ownership or legal status of their property. The relevant coverage provision stated that Chicago Title insured, as of the date the policy took effect (October 2, 2013), against loss or damage 'by reason of: No right of access to and from the Land.'

Since acquiring the property, the Crismans have been involved in multiple rounds of state court litigation involving 'Hornet Street,' a dead-end gravel road measuring two rods wide and running north one-half mile from County Road 3. The Crismans maintain that Hornet Street is the only way to access their property from a public road. The state court cases (Minnesota Court File Nos. 33-CV-20-4, 33-CV-23-187, and 33-CV-23-190) have addressed whether Hornet Street is a township road, whether Hillman Township has a legal duty to maintain it, and related issues. One case is still active and as recently as December 2025, a Minnesota district court granted a trial continuance after fundamental disagreements emerged among the parties during trial.

The Crismans filed a claim with Chicago Title seeking coverage for their legal costs in the state court litigation. Chicago Title denied the claim, asserting that the property had a legal right of access along Hornet Street as of the date of the policy and therefore the policy was not triggered. After multiple requests for reconsideration, the Crismans sued Chicago Title for breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment — a court ruling declaring the parties' legal rights — that the state court litigation was covered under the policy. Chicago Title removed the case from state court to federal court in August 2024.

The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Both sides moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a pretrial ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) that is appropriate only when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Courts must view facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Chicago Title's Motion

Chicago Title sought full summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law the Crismans possessed a legal right of access to the property as of October 2, 2013, through one of two roads: Hornet Street or Hillman Drive (also called 297th Avenue).

On Hornet Street, Chicago Title pointed to Hillman Township's own admission in Minnesota Court of Appeals briefing that 'the northern quarter mile of Hornet Street is a town road,' and argued that the township's '40-Year Resolution' — an attempt to disclaim maintenance obligations — could not give rise to insurance claims because it was passed eight years after the policy took effect.

On Hillman Drive, Chicago Title produced a Kanabec County plat showing the road was 'dedicated to the public for public use forever,' and a declaration from Richard Martens, a Hillman Town Board supervisor, stating that a 'four-rod (66 feet) platted and maintained road (297th Avenue) extends in the Raspberry Acres plat to the eastern boundary of [the Property] and provides unfettered access to their property.' Chicago Title argued that even if Hillman Drive was not the Crismans' preferred access route, it still constituted a legal right of access.

The Crismans' Motion

The Crismans moved for partial summary judgment on the narrower question of whether Chicago Title owed them a duty to defend — that is, an obligation to pay their legal costs in the state court litigation. They did not seek a ruling on the full extent of damages.

The Crismans disputed both of Chicago Title's access arguments. On Hornet Street, they contended that the legal dispute over the road's status long predated the 40-Year Resolution and remained unresolved. On Hillman Drive, Renee Crisman attested in an affidavit that the area between the property and the end of Hillman Drive was 'completely abandoned, wooded and blocked until the Township entered and cleared it in July 2021.' The Crismans argued that any access via Hillman Drive was at best 'hypothetical' as of 2013, and that under Minnesota Statute § 365.10, subd. 11, Hillman Township may have legally abandoned the road before the policy date because no maintenance or construction had occurred on it for 25 years or more.

The Court's Analysis

Governing Legal Standard: Duty to Defend

Under Minnesota law, an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to ultimately pay out a claim (indemnify). The duty to defend arises 'when any part of the claim against the insured is arguably within the scope of protection afforded by the policy.' Franklin v. Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 574 N.W.2d 405, 406–07 (Minn. 1998). If the duty to defend one claim exists, it extends to all claims in the litigation. Critically, the burden falls on the insurer — not the policyholder — to prove that 'all parts of a cause of action clearly fall outside the scope of coverage.' Any ambiguity is resolved in the policyholder's favor.

Factual Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment for Chicago Title

The court found that genuine disputes of material fact remain regarding whether the Crismans had a legal right of access to the property as of October 2, 2013. Under Minnesota law, property owners have a right of 'reasonably convenient and suitable access' to an abutting highway, and what constitutes reasonable access is ordinarily a fact question. State by Comm'r of Transp. v. Elbert, 942 N.W.2d 182, 190 (Minn. 2020).

The court declined to find that either Hornet Street or Hillman Drive conclusively established legal access as a matter of law. While some evidence supported Chicago Title's position, the Crismans' evidence — including Renee Crisman's affidavit describing Hillman Drive as blocked and wooded until 2021, and the ongoing unresolved nature of the Hornet Street dispute — created factual issues a jury would need to resolve. Chicago Title's motion for summary judgment was therefore denied.

Chicago Title Failed to Meet Its Burden on the Duty to Defend

On the Crismans' motion, the court found that Chicago Title had not demonstrated that the state court litigation clearly fell outside the scope of the policy. Importantly, the court noted that Chicago Title's briefing never addressed the applicable 'arguably within the scope' standard for the duty to defend at all. Chicago Title's entire argument was premised on proving that legal access existed — but once the court found that factual disputes remained on that question, Chicago Title had no fallback argument.

Because Chicago Title bore the burden of showing the claim clearly fell outside coverage and failed to carry that burden, the court concluded that Chicago Title owes the Crismans a duty to defend in the underlying state court litigation relating to the access rights, ownership, and maintenance of Hornet Street. The court granted the Crismans' motion for partial summary judgment on that point.

What Remains

The court's ruling establishes that Chicago Title has a duty to defend and has breached its contract by failing to provide that defense. However, the extent of damages — how much Chicago Title owes for that breach — was not part of the Crismans' motion and remains for further litigation.