Title company assigns its rights to collect attorney’s fees to two assignees based upon a provision indemnifying it as an escrow holder, inclusive of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The lower court denied the assignees’ fee request, determining that the facial language in the indemnification clause did not apply because a prior case resolved in title company’s favor did not involve escrow claims but related to issues of title/improper designation of the property.
The lower court’s decision was affirmed in Scarborough v. Kellar, Case No. B238315 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 5, 2012) (unpublished). Similar cases had adopted a similarly narrow interpretation of escrow holder indemnification clauses, see, e.g., Francis v. Eisenmayer, 171 Cal.App.2d 221, 227 (1959); Campbell v. Scripps Bank, 78 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1337 (2000), and there was no reason to do otherwise here.
BLOG UNDERVIEW–Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry J. Walsh was the lower court deciding this fee issue. Co-contributor Mike was in front of Judge Walsh when he presided over a month jury trial in a case involving two neighboring citrus landowners.