A Massachusetts appeals court has handed title insurers a clear win - and flagged a gap in coverage that the industry should be paying attention to.
In a decision issued on April 10, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that Old Republic Title Insurance Company was within its rights to deny coverage to property owners who were sued over a strip of land they legally owned but that fell outside the boundaries described in their title insurance policy.
The case traces back to 2013, when Douglas Scott Lester and John Tyler Mandeville purchased a property on Hillcrest Acres Lane in Westport. They secured a title insurance policy from Old Republic that described the insured land as sitting "on the northerly side of Hillcrest Acres Lane, so called, (private way - min 40 feet wide)."
Six years later, their neighbors, the Dromskys, sued over the plaintiffs' restoration of a stone wall sitting south of the property's metes and bounds - but north of the actual road. The plaintiffs asked Old Republic to step in and defend them. Old Republic said no. The land under the stone wall, the insurer argued, was not covered.
Here is where it gets interesting. A Superior Court judge in the neighbor dispute found that the plaintiffs did in fact own the land under the stone wall, thanks to a Massachusetts statute known as the derelict fee statute. That law presumes that when someone buys land next to a road or boundary, they also acquire the underlying strip of land up to the center of that road.
So the plaintiffs owned the land - but their title insurer still would not cover it.
The plaintiffs filed suit against Old Republic on March 4, 2022, raising claims including breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of Massachusetts insurance regulations. The Appeals Court, reviewing the case on summary judgment, sided with Old Republic across the board.
The court found the policy language was clear. Coverage stopped at the border of Hillcrest Acres Lane as defined in the policy — a lane described as at least forty feet wide. The stone wall sat inside that width. The policy's Schedule B exclusion reinforced the point, carving out disputes over land "lying within the bounds of Hillcrest Acres Lane and the adjoining streets and ways."
As for the derelict fee statute, the court held that it applies to instruments that pass title to real estate — not to insurance contracts. Applying it to a title policy, the court said, would contradict both the statute's language and the plain terms of the contract.
But not every member of the panel left it there. In a concurring opinion, Justice Wood acknowledged the property owners had reason to be confused and suggested the Massachusetts Legislature or the Commissioner of the Division of Insurance should follow California's lead, where courts have held that title insurance extends by implication to ancillary titles and privileges attached to the insured property.
That concurrence may prove to be the most closely watched part of the decision. If Massachusetts lawmakers take up the suggestion, title insurers operating in the state could face broader coverage obligations — a development worth monitoring.
