Is there any relevant factual evidence in the insurer’s file for subrogated title insurance?

There may however be relevant factual evidence in the insurer’s file. In Whatman v. Selley[4] for example, which was also a case dealing with subrogated title insurance, the insured plaintiff had discovered concealed fire damage in the building some time after closing. The defendant sought information in the insurer’s file that was relevant to whether it was necessary to demolish the walls of the house or whether some less expensive solution would have been appropriate. It turned out that there were documents in the adjuster’s file which were the best evidence of the state of the premises when damage was first reported to the insurer. In particular there was an evaluation of the damage to the property and the need for repair which suggested that the work subsequently done by the insured went well beyond what was required to repair the damage. What was relevant was not the reason the insurer decided to pay for the additional work. The relevant information was the factual record and the estimate of the cost of necessary repairs.