Regulatory and Legal Developments

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Regulatory and Legal Developments [Abstract]

Regulatory and legal developments

NOTE 9

Regulatory and legal developments. Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (STGM) were defendants in a lawsuit in the State District Court of Harris County, Texas, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company. The lawsuit was filed in 2008 and concerns 16 owners’ and 16 lenders’ title insurance policies on 16 parcels of land in Mexico issued by STGM and reinsurance agreements by STGC. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. asserted claims against STGC under reinsurance of the lenders’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V., the owner of the parcels, asserted claims against STGC and separate claims against STGM under the owners’ policies as well as extra-contractual claims under Texas law. The State District Court dismissed the extra-contractual claims against STGC and STGM based on application of Mexican law.

After a 10 week trial, the jury returned a verdict of no damages, favorable to STGC and STGM, on April 29, 2011. Judgment was entered on June 30, 2011. Both Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. subsequently filed motions for new trial and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the State District Court denied by orders dated September 12, 2011. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. and K.R. Playa VI, S de R.L. de C.V. filed notices of appeal on September 28, 2011. The Company does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

*   *   *

In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Title of California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging that the plaintiffs have suffered damages relating to loans they made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Thereafter, several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants vary from case to case, but Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company and Stewart Title Insurance Company have also each been sued in at least one of the cases. Each of the complaints alleges some combination of the following purported causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, financial elder abuse, violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, alter ego, specific performance and declaratory relief. The Company has demurred to or moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions where responses to the complaints have been due. Although the San Luis Obispo Superior Court has sustained demurrers to certain causes of action and certain individuals and entities and dismissed Stewart Information Services Corporation from one case without leave to amend, and plaintiffs in one case have dismissed Stewart Title Insurance Company following the Court’s sustaining of Stewart Title Insurance Company’s demurrer, the Court has overruled the demurrers as to some causes of action. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to the claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, with prejudice, and remanded the remainder of the case to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. The Company filed a motion to coordinate the cases for pretrial purposes, and the Court issued an order assigning all the cases to a single judge, an Order Coordinating Related Cases for Pre-Trial Purposes, and a First Case Management Order for the Related Cases. Discovery is ongoing. No trial dates have been set. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

*   *   *

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar class action allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of July 8, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissals of the claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed). The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissals in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for review of those decisions. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Circuit the dismissal of the RESPA claims by the court in New York. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

*   *   *

The Company is also subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of its business, most of which involve disputed policy claims. In some of these lawsuits, the plaintiff seeks exemplary or treble damages in excess of policy limits. The Company does not expect that any of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Along with the other major title insurance companies, the Company is party to a number of class action lawsuits concerning the title insurance industry. The Company believes that it has adequate reserves for the various litigation matters and contingencies discussed above and that the likely resolution of these matters will not materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is subject to administrative actions and litigation relating to the basis on which premium taxes are paid in certain states. Additionally, the Company has received various other inquiries from governmental regulators concerning practices in the insurance industry. Many of these practices do not concern title insurance. The Company believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of these inquiries will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is also subject to various other administrative actions and inquiries into its business conduct in certain of the states in which it operates. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the various regulatory and administrative matters, it believes that it has adequately reserved for these matters and does not anticipate that the outcome of any of these matters will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.