Opinion
March 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irving Aronin, J.).
An insurer's duty to defend is "`exceedingly broad'"; broader than the duty to indemnify, it arises "whenever the four corners of the complaint suggest * * * a reasonable possibility of coverage" (Continental Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640, 648). Defendant urges, in effect, the novel theory that an insured is required to divulge to the title insurance company any possible "controversy" surrounding the property that might conceivably ripen into a title claim some time in the future. However, a title insurance policy is voidable for concealment only if the defects concealed are material, and not readily ascertainable by examination of the public records (Smirlock Realty Corp. v. Title Guar. Co., 52 N.Y.2d 179, 189-190). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly found that defendant failed to establish that plaintiff had committed any intentional concealment or other misconduct that would relieve the title insurer of having to defend its insured against the attack on its title to the subject property.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.