Andrew Crisman and Renee Crisman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-03188
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Crisman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Judge Tunheim denied the insurance company's motion for summary judgment and granted the property owners' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Chicago Title has a legal duty to defend Andrew and Renee Crisman in their ongoing state court dispute over access to their Minnesota property.
Property owners who have purchased title insurance and are involved in disputes about legal access to their land, as well as title insurance companies that deny coverage claims. This ruling is relevant to anyone in Minnesota (or potentially other jurisdictions applying similar duty-to-defend standards) whose title insurer has denied a claim for legal defense costs on the ground that no covered loss exists.
What happened
In Crisman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Andrew and Renee Crisman purchased 120 acres of rural property in Kanabec County, Minnesota in 2013 and also bought a title insurance policy from Chicago Title. That policy promised to cover losses if the Crismans lacked a legal right of access to and from their property as of October 2, 2013. The Crismans have since been involved in multiple state court lawsuits over the legal status of 'Hornet Street,' a gravel road they say is the only practical way to reach their land from public roads. When they asked Chicago Title to cover their legal costs for those lawsuits, Chicago Title refused, saying the Crismans clearly had legal access to their property when the policy began.
Both sides asked the court to rule in their favor without a full trial. Chicago Title argued it could prove, as a definitive legal matter, that the Crismans had access to their property in 2013 through either Hornet Street or a second road called Hillman Drive (also known as 297th Avenue). The Crismans disputed both claims, arguing that Hornet Street's legal status was contested long before any recent actions by Hillman Township, and that Hillman Drive was overgrown, blocked, and effectively abandoned as of the policy date. The Crismans sought a court declaration that Chicago Title is obligated to pay for their defense in state court.
Judge Tunheim denied Chicago Title's motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine factual disputes remain about whether the Crismans had a legal right of access in 2013 — meaning the issue cannot be resolved without further litigation. More importantly, the court granted the Crismans' motion for partial summary judgment on the duty-to-defend question. Under Minnesota law, an insurer must defend its policyholder whenever any part of a lawsuit is arguably covered by the policy, and the burden is on the insurer to prove the claim clearly falls outside coverage. Because Chicago Title focused only on trying to prove access existed and never separately argued that the state court litigation was outside the policy's scope, it failed to meet that burden. The court declared that Chicago Title has a duty to defend the Crismans in the underlying state court cases. The question of how much money Chicago Title owes as damages for breaching that duty remains to be decided in further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Crisman v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Civil No. 24-3188 (JRT/LIB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- March 17, 2026
Background
Andrew and Renee Crisman purchased 120 acres of real property in Kanabec County, Minnesota in 2013 and simultaneously purchased a title insurance policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company. The policy insured the Crismans, as of the policy's effective date of October 2, 2013, against loss or damage arising from 'No right of access to and from the Land.'
The Crismans have been parties to several state court actions involving 'Hornet Street,' a dead-end gravel road running north one-half mile from County Road 3 that the Crismans contend is their only means of accessing the property from public roads. The underlying litigation involves disputes over whether Hornet Street is a township road, whether Hillman Township is obligated to maintain it, and related issues (Minnesota Court File Nos. 33-CV-20-4; 33-CV-23-187; 33-CV-23-190). The Crismans filed a title insurance claim with Chicago Title for legal costs associated with this litigation. Chicago Title denied coverage, taking the position that the property had a legal right of access via Hornet Street as of the policy date. The Crismans sued for breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment (a court ruling declaring their legal rights under the policy). Chicago Title removed the case to federal court.
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Both parties moved for summary judgment — a ruling based on undisputed facts without a trial. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and one party is entitled to win as a matter of law. The court must view facts in favor of the non-moving party.
Chicago Title's Motion (Denied)
Chicago Title argued that, as a matter of law, the Crismans possessed a legal right of access as of October 2, 2013, through either (1) Hornet Street, pointing to Hillman Township's own admission in prior appellate briefing that at least part of Hornet Street is a town road, and arguing any access dispute post-dates the policy; or (2) Hillman Drive (297th Avenue), a platted road recorded as 'dedicated to the public for public use forever' that abuts the property, supported by a declaration from a Hillman Town Board supervisor stating it provides 'unfettered access.' The Crismans countered that Hornet Street's legal status was contested long before the 40-Year Resolution cited by Chicago Title, and that Hillman Drive was physically blocked, wooded, and abandoned as of the policy date — and that under Minnesota Statute § 365.10, subd. 11, the road may have been legally abandoned as a town road. The court found that factual disputes remain on both roads' legal and physical status as of 2013 and denied Chicago Title's motion.
The Crismans' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Granted)
Under Minnesota law, an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to ultimately pay a claim (indemnify). The duty to defend arises whenever any part of a claim is 'arguably within the scope of protection afforded by the policy.' The burden falls on the insurer to prove that all parts of a claim clearly fall outside policy coverage. If the insurer cannot meet that burden, the duty to defend exists regardless of the merits of the underlying lawsuits. The court compares the allegations in the underlying complaints with the policy language to determine whether the duty arises.
The court found that Chicago Title's entire opposition focused solely on proving that legal access existed in 2013. Chicago Title never argued — and never briefed — whether the state court litigation was 'arguably within the scope' of the policy's coverage. Having failed to meet its burden of showing the claim clearly falls outside coverage, Chicago Title could not escape the duty to defend. The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring that Chicago Title owes the Crismans a duty to defend them in the underlying state court litigation concerning Hornet Street access rights, ownership, and maintenance.
What Remains
The court expressly left open for further litigation the question of the extent of Chicago Title's liability in damages for breach of contract. The partial summary judgment resolves only the duty-to-defend question.
Key Legal Standards Applied
- Summary judgment standard: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). - Duty to defend (Minnesota law): Franklin v. Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 574 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 1998); Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 722 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 2006); Prahm v. Rupp Const. Co., 277 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1979). - Right of access as property right: State by Comm'r of Transp. v. Elbert, 942 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 2020).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.