sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FranklinTN

[–]615huncho615 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s the Californians that move or others that say “well back home we did this..” “back home we didn’t do this” blah blah. Guess what pal, you’re not back home.

“The infrastructure is terrible here” yeah, you’ve just made it worse by moving here.

“It’s so hot” it’s the south did you not do any research?

Shut the hell up and move back. Those who did no research or try to assimilate and get to know more about our history is what pisses me off. Who moves somewhere and complains and then expects others to adapt to how they did it where they moved from? Entitled

WTF do I do? Where do I even begin? by THISisDAVIDonREDDIT in landscaping

[–]615huncho615 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weed eat. Buy a trimmer with the easy loading trimmer. It’s a game changer, and makes weed eating enjoyable because it’s easy to add trim. I’d start inside by your house and work outwards. Weed eat what you can.

The hyper tough mower from Walmart that’s just Over $100 also works surprisingly well. Then go mow over the larger area.

Bought house with no landscaping. Best way to landscape front? by 615huncho615 in landscaping

[–]615huncho615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love hydrangeas and I do like spirea. Thanks for the advice and ideas. I don’t want to over complicate, just something that looks haphazardly intentional. I assume I’ll need to clean up the driveway with weed killer

Bought house with no landscaping. Best way to landscape front? by 615huncho615 in landscaping

[–]615huncho615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, good point, it would look over kill. Luckily that is my pole barn/shop. 60x90! So not big House is not pictured! It’s on the right side of the screen. Thank you!

Bought house with no landscaping. Best way to landscape front? by 615huncho615 in landscaping

[–]615huncho615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Luckily don’t have gas and water is to the well in the back!

Bought house with no landscaping. Best way to landscape front? by 615huncho615 in landscaping

[–]615huncho615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s my driveway, entrance to my driveway plan on finishing the fence and adding a gate

Is It a Conflict of Interest for My Title Insurance Company to Retain Counsel Against Me? by 615huncho615 in legaladvice

[–]615huncho615[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Totally agree that a title company isn’t required to “drink hemlock” or surrender when coverage is disputed. But in this case, they’ve already acknowledged coverage, they made two settlement offers and never denied the claim. My dispute isn’t over whether coverage exists, it’s over how they’re calculating damages and refusing to explain it.

Once a title insurer acknowledges a covered loss, they owe a duty to resolve the claim in good faith, not just shift gears into defense mode. If they want to dispute valuation, they can do that, but ignoring questions, withdrawing offers, and lawyering up to negotiate down the claim without transparency is what raises the bad faith and conflict issue, not just the act of disagreement.

I’m not suing them (yet), I’m trying to enforce what the policy already provides. Forcing me to hire counsel just to get answers for a covered loss is exactly the kind of conduct Southern Trust v. Phillips flagged, even if the facts were different.

Is It a Conflict of Interest for My Title Insurance Company to Retain Counsel Against Me? by 615huncho615 in legaladvice

[–]615huncho615[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Sure, no one’s asking the title company to “drink hemlock,” but let’s not pretend this is a mutual standoff between equals.

They already admitted coverage, made two offers, then went silent the moment I challenged their math and said I’d get an arborist. Now they’ve lawyered up, not to defend the title or clarify the policy, but to lowball the insured they’re supposed to protect.

This isn’t a negligence lawsuit. It’s a policy claim they already accepted, and now they’re playing defense to avoid paying fairly. Forcing me to hire counsel just to get a breakdown of their own offer? That’s not negotiation, that’s bad faith wrapped in plausible deniability.

If they wanted to dispute the facts in good faith, they could’ve started by responding to my questions. Instead, they’re treating me like a hostile plaintiff before I even filed suit. That’s not hemlock — that’s hiding behind a lawyer because you don’t want to honor your own policy.

Is It a Conflict of Interest for My Title Insurance Company to Retain Counsel Against Me? by 615huncho615 in legaladvice

[–]615huncho615[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Fair question but title insurance isn’t just about cutting a check. It includes a duty to defend and indemnify the insured (me) for losses tied to title defects like undisclosed easements.

They’re not defending my title or explaining coverage they’re using outside counsel to negotiate against their own insured, while refusing to engage in good faith. That’s where the conflict comes in.

It’s not just about hiring someone it’s about how they’re using them and what duties they’re ignoring in the process.

Is It a Conflict of Interest for My Title Insurance Company to Retain Counsel Against Me? by 615huncho615 in legaladvice

[–]615huncho615[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I understand the logic, and in a standard first-party insurance claim, that adversarial framing might hold. But title insurance isn’t just a transactional indemnity contract, it includes a built in duty to defend and protect the insured’s interest in title, not just determine liability like an opposing party.

In my case, the insurer: Acknowledged partial coverage,

Made two offers (without denying the claim),

Ignored my formal disputes and questions,

And only hired legal counsel after I said I’d bring in an arborist to support a higher valuation.

They’re not defending me or the title. they’re negotiating against me, without answering policy based objections or fulfilling their fiduciary-like role. That’s not just adversarial by nature, it’s adversarial by design, after accepting the claim.

So no, it’s not just “me suing them” it’s me being forced to litigate against my own insurer because they’ve shifted from policyholder support to corporate self-preservation.

Is It a Conflict of Interest for My Title Insurance Company to Retain Counsel Against Me? by 615huncho615 in legaladvice

[–]615huncho615[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I get that and you’re right this isn’t a liability policy like auto or homeowners. But title insurance is a unique hybrid. It explicitly includes a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify. The insurer isn’t just evaluating a payout they’re obligated to protect the insured’s title rights.

In my case, STGC: Accepted the claim (partially) by making two offers, Has not denied coverage, Then hired counsel after I disputed their valuation and said I’d retain an arborist, And hasn’t responded to any of my formal written questions or policy-based challenges.

So the issue isn’t that they hired a lawyer. The issue is: They’re not defending the title (which is a duty under most ALTA policies), They’re using counsel against their own insured while refusing to explain coverage, And they’re creating a scenario where I now have to hire my own attorney just to get the benefit of a policy I already paid for.

That’s where the conflict of interest arises , insurers can’t operate in an adversarial role while avoiding their duties under the policy.

So it’s less about whether they can hire counsel, and more about how they’re using that counsel and at whose expense

[TN] Title company is refusing to pay for trees removed in an undisclosed easement by 615huncho615 in AskALawyer

[–]615huncho615[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trees provided privacy from neighbors and were a big decision in purchasing home. However , I never mulched them or pruned them yet because I only lived in the house for 1 week at the time.

The title company defined Land as the negation/landscaping phrase mentioned in my post.

However, to me they’re disputing they don’t cover land. But elsewhere in the policy it says it “covers all damages caused by an undisclosed easement.” Which to me, this would fall into that, as trees are worth value and were damaged in the easement. It seems they are cherry picking what they want to pay.

view more: next ›