Oral Argument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 30557, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 9 a.m.
LLOYD R. ANASTASI, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant:
Philip J. Leas and Jacqueline B. Kido of Cades Schutte LLP
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee:
Carol A. Eblen, Edmund K. Saffery, Thomas Benedict, and William K. Tanaka of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLP
COURT: Foley, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
This appeal arises from a dispute over title insurance coverage. In the underlying complaint, Plaintiff-Appellant Lloyd R. Anastasi (Anastasi) asserts claims against Defendant-Appellee Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity) for breach of contract (Count I) and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count II).
The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity as to Count II and entered Judgment in favor of Fidelity on Count II pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b). Anastasi appealed from the HRCP Rule 54(b) certified judgment, filed on May 24, 2010.
Anastasi contends on appeal that the circuit court erred by: (1) granting summary judgment to Fidelity, ruling that Fidelity’s actions were reasonable as a matter of law; (2) imputing to Anastasi the actions of the attorney hired by Fidelity to defend Anastasi; (3) ruling that the attorney-client privilege permitted withholding of Anastasi’s claim file, which detailed Fidelity’s handling of Anastasi’s claim; (4) ruling that, in response to Anastasi’s discovery request as to Fidelity’s handling of other claims, Anastasi was entitled only to information on claims that arose in Hawaiʻi and that arose and were resolved in a limited time period; and (5) awarding costs to Fidelity because the circuit court was divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of this appeal and it was not apparent that Fidelity was or would be the prevailing party.
In addition to contesting Anastasi’s points of error on the merits, Fidelity argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over Anastasi’s third and fourth points of error relating to the circuit court’s March 17, 2009 order regarding Anastasi’s motion to compel discovery and the March 10, 2010 order regarding Fidelity’s motion for protective order.