The defendant Constantine Glinos brought a motion for summary judgment on his cross-claim against Chicago Title Insurance Company.
Glinos, a lawyer, sought indemnity for legal costs incurred defending a professional negligence claim brought by purchasers (Small and Kondic) related to a real estate transaction.
The purchasers had also sued Chicago Title under a title insurance policy.
Glinos argued that Chicago Title's indemnity obligation to lawyers, established through an agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada, applied because the purchasers' claims "arose under the title insurance policy," based on the pleadings rule from Stewart Title Guarantee Co. v. Zeppieri.
Chicago Title denied liability, arguing Glinos's alleged material misrepresentation in the application invalidated the policy and that the claim was for professional malpractice, not under the policy.
The court granted summary judgment to Glinos, finding that the purchasers' claims, as pleaded, arose under the title insurance policy, triggering Chicago Title's indemnity obligation for Glinos's defence costs.
The court also found no material misrepresentation that would invalidate the policy.