A title agency lost its professional liability coverage after months of silence, leaving the fraud-claim plaintiffs fighting to keep its insurer at the table.
On June 6, 2024, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Washington, D.C., asking a judge to rule that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Lexicon Title Services, LLC, or Lexicon’s sole member, Deidre Brown. On February 10, 2026, the court agreed.
The dispute grew out of an earlier lawsuit in the same court, where Doma Title Insurance, Inc. and Rehabit DC, LLC accused Lexicon and Brown of mishandling a real estate closing in the District of Columbia. According to the underlying complaint, Rehabit bought a property encumbered by a deed of trust for $154,800. Lexicon, acting as a “limited agent” for Doma, handled the closing and issued an ALTA Combined Final Settlement Statement showing that $199,505.60 of Rehabit’s funds had been used to pay off that deed of trust.
But the servicer later told Doma the lien had never been paid and that the balance had grown to $250,931.05. Doma and Rehabit alleged Lexicon and Brown “absconded with the money” and sued them for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, trover and conversion.
Lexicon carried a Miscellaneous Professional Liability Insurance Policy issued by Princeton Excess, covering May 15, 2023 to May 15, 2024. Once notified of the lawsuit on February 22, 2024, Princeton Excess went to work trying to reach its insured.
From late February through mid-May 2024, a claims specialist emailed Brown repeatedly, called Lexicon’s office, left multiple voicemails, tried an additional number found online, and even reached out to Brown’s bankruptcy lawyer after learning she had filed for bankruptcy. The insurer issued five separate Reservation of Rights and Cooperation Notices by email and mail, including one that highlighted in yellow the looming court deadline for Lexicon’s response in the underlying case and warned that continued silence could threaten coverage.
Over time, Lexicon’s office line began returning an automated message that the number was “temporarily unavailable.” According to the complaint, neither Brown nor anyone on behalf of Lexicon ever responded to any of Princeton Excess’s communications.
The policy’s Assistance and Cooperation clause required insureds to “cooperate with the Company and provide to the Company all information and assistance which the Company reasonably requests,” including attending hearings and trials, helping with settlements, securing and giving evidence, obtaining witnesses, and assisting the defense of any covered claim. It ended with a blunt warning: “Failure to cooperate with the Company in the defense of a Claim or in the investigation of a Claim is a breach of this policy and will result in loss of coverage.”
While Lexicon and Brown never appeared in the coverage case, Doma and Rehabit did. As the plaintiffs in the underlying action, they opposed Princeton Excess’s motion for default judgment, arguing that the insurer needed to show it had been prejudiced by the lack of cooperation before it could walk away from the policy.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected that argument. She noted that the policy language did not tie loss of coverage to a showing of prejudice. She added that, even if prejudice were required, Princeton Excess had shown it: without any communication from Lexicon or Brown, the insurer had “no information that would enable it to admit or deny the allegations” or to raise “any appropriate defenses,” information she described as “vital” to a defense.