Michel L. Schlup Revocable Trust v. Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund, Inc.
2026 COA 16. No. 23CA1886. Insurance—Title Insurance—Right of Access—Governmental Regulation—Complete Defense Rule.
March 19, 2026
In 2018, the Michel L. Schlup Revocable Trust (trust) bought an undeveloped parcel of land in Estes Park (the property). Homestead Lane, an unimproved private road that crossed several adjacent properties, was the only access between the property and State Highway 34. The trust purchased a title insurance policy from Attorney Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. (ATGF), which covered loss or damage to the trust resulting from “no right of access to and from the [property]” (the policy). The trust began constructing a residence on the property, which required it to improve that part of Homestead Lane leading to the property. But the local fire protection district determined that if any portion of Homestead Lane was improved, all of Homestead Lane would have to be paved to comply with the Estes Valley Fire Protection District’s fire code. The trust began paving Homestead Lane, and later that year Stark, a nearby parcel owner, sued the trust, claiming it had no legal right of access to the property across his property. ATGF retained an attorney who successfully defended the trust against Stark’s claims. Then in 2022, Nassimbene, the owner of a second parcel adjacent to the property that included part of Homestead Lane, intervened in the Stark lawsuit, claiming trespass and unjust enrichment based on the trust’s paving the portion of Homestead Lane running across Nassimbene’s property. Nassimbene didn’t dispute that the trust had an easement across his property on Homestead Lane to access the property but contested the trust’s right to improve that easement over his objection. ATGF refused to provide the trust a defense or indemnification with respect to Nassimbene’s claims, asserting that the policy didn’t cover them. The trust resolved Nassimbene’s claims and then sued ATGF for failure to provide a defense. The district court granted summary judgment for ATGF, concluding that it had no duty to defend under the policy’s terms or pursuant to the complete defense rule.
On appeal, the trust argued that Nassimbene’s claims implicated its right to access the property, so the policy covered them. The trust maintained that the policy’s “no right of access” language is ambiguous and includes a right of access sufficient to develop the property. Here, Nassimbene claimed that the trust had (1) trespassed on his property by paving Homestead Land without his authorization; and (2) contrary to a maintenance agreement between Nassimbene and several neighbors to share the costs associated with maintaining Homestead Lane, had unjustly enriched itself to his detriment by increasing the cost of maintaining Homestead Lane without committing to cover that cost. First, the policy’s “no right of access” language is not ambiguous and included the right to pave Homestead Lane. But Nassimbene didn’t dispute that the trust had a right of access over Homestead Lane. Second, the policy doesn’t insure access sufficient to develop the property, because the requirement for the trust to upgrade access to the property directly resulted from governmental regulation, not a preexisting title defect.
The trust also argued that even if the policy didn’t cover Nassimbene’s claims, ATGF was still required to defend against them under the complete defense rule. The complete defense rule requires an insurer to provide the insured a defense on all claims if any claim is arguably covered by the policy. The court of appeals determined that, given the differences between title and general liability insurance, the complete defense rule shouldn’t extend to title insurance. Further, the parties here bargained for an unambiguous and limited range of liability. The court thus concluded that the complete defense rule does not apply in the title insurance context. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that ATGF properly denied coverage for Nassimbene’s claims.
The grant of summary judgment was affirmed.