Here is what one case says
The Corrected Policy contains the same insuring provision and exclusions as the *623 prior policies (Dkt. # 123, Tab 30). Therefore, coverage for Doubletree’s claim is excluded regardless of the policy under Exclusion 3(a), as discussed above. However, the Corrected Policy includes the survey coverage purchased by Doubletree, which is indicated on Schedule B and states:
This policy does not insure against loss or damage … that arise by reason of the terms and conditions of the leases or easements insured, if any, shown in Schedule A and the following matters:
In the original policy, that exception excluded coverage for, “any discrepancies, conflicts, or shortages in area or boundary lines, or any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping of improvements” (Dkt. # 123, Tab 12). However, for a payment of an additional premium and survey, the language is changed to exclude only shortages in area.
…
Doubletree argues that the purchase of survey coverage entitles it to coverage for all errors in the survey, since survey coverage necessarily requires the Court to assume that Lawyers Title agreed to insure the accuracy of the survey. Additionally, Doubletree argues that the Flowage Easement is only excluded to the extent that it is depicted on the survey. Lawyers Title argues that survey coverage is not intended to cover any alleged errors in the survey, that the type of title insurance that Doubletree suggests it has is not available in Texas, and that the exception for the Flowage Easement included on Schedule B clearly excludes the Flowage Easement from coverage.
There is no affirmative language in the insuring provision or anywhere in the Corrected Policy that grants coverage to Doubletree for the accuracy of the survey. The deletion or modification of an exception to coverage does not create coverage where no coverage exists. *624 Burke, L. TITLE INS. § 9.01 (2010); First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Dahlmann, 291 Wis.2d 156, 715 N.W.2d 609, 618 (2006). The deletion of the words “any discrepancies, conflicts, or shortages in area or boundary lines, or any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping of improvements” does not mean that all errors in the survey are now covered by the title insurance policy. The Court agrees with Lawyers Title that the plain language of the contract shows that the deletion of the above language means that any title defects that result from discrepancies or conflicts in boundary lines, any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping of improvements may now be covered by the title insurance policy, subject to the other exclusions and exceptions from the policy. The error in depicting the Flowage Easement is not a discrepancy or conflict in a boundary line, encroachment, protrusion, or overlapping of improvements.
Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 866 F. Supp. 2d 604, 622–24 (E.D. Tex. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded sub nom. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 739 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 2014)