Special offer

Do you have an Owner's Title Policy?

By
Real Estate Agent with Integrity Real Estate

Do you have an owner's title policy?  It's a question I often ask groups of title executives to see their response.  Usually theres some chuckling and a little rustling in the seats.  But, its a question thats touchy and legitimate at the same time.  Doesn't everybody buy title insurance?  Isn't it as American as apple pie and the NFL?  Well, apparently not!

Problem No. 1:  A title policy isn't really an insurance policy; it's technically an indemnity contract.  There's a world of difference between the two.  Under the terms of a title policy, a policyholder must first suffer a financial loss before being reimbursed by the insurer.  The amount of the loss is typically determined by a court after years of costly litigation.  Homeowners dealing with a legitimate claim often find it necessary to hire an attorney to negotiate with the title insurance company.  Contrary to popular belief, a title policy does not guarantee that homeowners will keep their home.  

Problem No. 2:  Title policies contain exceptions and exclusions that are rarely explained and generally misunderstood.  Title insurers are staffed by armies of claims council that use the limited scope of a title policy to their best advantage.   Most claims are rejected based on the technical terms of the title policy.  By far, losses suffered by homeowners result from mistakes made by the title agent, title abstractor or surveyor.   When this happens, the homeowner has no recourse but to sue the title agent or surveyor who then looks to their E&O carrier.  Title insurance protects only against hidden defects, not mistakes or negligence. 

There are exceptions.  I know of instances where title insurers have paid claims on matters unrelated to policy coverage to appease state legislators and regulators.  Title insurers will sometimes avoid large legitimate claims by paying smaller amounts for issues not covered by the policy. 

Problem No. 3:  Title Insurance is overpriced.  Out of every 1 dollar paid for title insurance only 4 cents is used to settle claims.  On average, title agents keep 81 cents of every 1 dollar paid for title insurance as a commission.  A number of states have identified the pricing issues associated with title insurance when compared to other lines of insurance and are attempting to legislate solutions.  I'm generally opposed to governmental intrusion, but title insurers are oligopolists who have effectively blocked the introduction of competitive products.

I don't have an owner's title policy on my own home.  Statistically, the probablity of a problem arising is next to nothing.  It's a knowlegable risk that I'm prepared to take.  I do, however, recommend title insurance to anyone who asks for an opinion.  Title insurance has saved many homeowners from financial devastation.  While I like some aspects of the product, I also recognize the need for changes that benefit the consumer.

Tony and Suzanne Marriott, Associate Brokers
Serving the Greater Phoenix and Scottsdale Metropolitan Area - Scottsdale, AZ
Haven Express @ Keller Williams Arizona Realty
Ed - Thanks for the package received yesterday - have not yet had a chance to review thoroughly but is on the list for this week.  From the inserts it looks to be a heck of an experience!
Jan 10, 2007 01:56 AM
Monika McGillicuddy
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Verani Realty - Hampstead, NH
Southern NH & the Seacoast Area
Interesting write up on title insurance Ed. I always knew it was a good money maker for...someone... not sure if it's the title companies or insurance companies. Like you I always suggest the buyers look into buying an owners policy and make an informed decision. Thanks Ed...
Jan 10, 2007 01:56 AM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate

Tony

Thanks for requesting the package.  Please get back to me with comments, it means a great deal to me.

Jan 10, 2007 01:58 AM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate

Monika

Thanks for commenting and please ask questions you might have about title insurance.  I work closely with the industry and do not always like what I see.  And, you're right, theres a lot of money being made. 

Jan 10, 2007 02:01 AM
Tom Burris
NMLS# 335055 - Baton Rouge, LA
Texas/Louisiana Mortgage Pro - 13 YRS Experience

these title companies make the money.

and i agree, that the premiums are a little high.

if it was open competition, i would think that rates would fall.

 

Jan 10, 2007 05:07 AM
Renée Donohue~Home Photography
Savvy Home Pix - Allegan, MI
Western Michigan Real Estate Photographer
Thanks for the 411 Ed!!  I guess I was always under the assumption that this was a "must have" as it is sold that way.  Do many underwriters require it?
Jan 10, 2007 05:21 AM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate

Tom, thanks for "weighing in."   Regretablly, theres little or no competition in the title industry.  The consumer is clearly the loser.

Jan 10, 2007 08:29 AM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate
Hi Renee.  Unfortunately, past generations approached title insurance as a "must have" because their attorney told them that it was.  Of course, the fact that the closing attorney was keeping most of the premium has been the title industry's well kept secret.  Title insurance should cost a fraction of what it does and title agents should disclose their fees much differently.  Always great to hear from you.
Jan 10, 2007 08:34 AM
Rob Robinson- Lehigh Valley PA
Bertrum Settlements (Title & Abstract) - Allentown, PA
I find most lenders require it.  Am I off base?
Jan 10, 2007 12:47 PM
George Souto
George Souto NMLS #65149 FHA, CHFA, VA Mortgages - Middletown, CT
Your Connecticut Mortgage Expert
Ed, that is a very nice profit 81 cents out of every dollar......WOW
Jan 10, 2007 01:29 PM
Rob Robinson- Lehigh Valley PA
Bertrum Settlements (Title & Abstract) - Allentown, PA

George, I don't think Ed called it profit.  He used the word 'commission'. So I think he's calling it REVENUE. I know that in my Title Company, revenue does not = profit.  There's something called overhead. :^)

 

Jan 10, 2007 11:27 PM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate

Rob

Thanks for commenting and I'm glad to see another title person here.  I was referring to the commission income for policies and not speculating wether it was profit or not.  It's my firm belief that most title agents are presently netting too little at the end of the day.  My concern is our general failure to disclose our income earned from commissions when quoting fees.

In refernce to your question yesterday.  I'm finding that increasing numbers of lenders are chosing to self insure when guidelines permit.  A friend at Stewart Title has echoed that sentiment and expressed concern.  Do you agree?

I recently lauched a blog just for title agents, Title-opoly.  Please stop by and have a look.  Let me know if you're interested in contributing posts; we're getting a fair amount of traffic for being very new.

Jan 11, 2007 12:05 AM
Rob Robinson- Lehigh Valley PA
Bertrum Settlements (Title & Abstract) - Allentown, PA

Ed, I will stop by - thks.  Work.AHHHHHHHHHHH.....has just tapped my shoulder.  The Prez/Owner wants to blitz most of my clients today (just stop by 'hello's).  So onto Mapquest I go.....

Jan 11, 2007 12:19 AM
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate
Thanks, Rob.  I look forward to your comments about Title-opoly.
Jan 11, 2007 12:34 AM
Anonymous
Diane Cipa, General Manager, The Closing Specialists®

Hi, Ed:

Well, I have to take issue with you on this post.  The average person is not a gambler and they are not willing to gamble the odds of their house burning down and so they buy fire insurance.  You of all people undertand the potential for fraud and total failure of title.  Encouraging people to forego owner coverage and thus have no protection should they be the unfortunate harmed party in an identity theft or other fraudulent transaction is not helping.

You are doing lots of good work helping to raise important issues but this post, whether intentional or not, is misguiding real estate professionals who are better served by encouraging their clients to get owner coverage.

I am a title insurance professional who is extremely careful and I still have to fix problems for insured homebuyer post closing.  My title underwriters have had to pay claims for transactions I have closed.  I haven't had a total failure title but did stop two from occurring within 24 hours of closing - one fraudulent identify and the other a pending foreclosure missed by an abstractor.

You may need to have high volume to see the problems.  We process 100 to 150 closings per month and so I do have a certain percentage that need fixing.  That doesn't mean I'm a bad examiner.  That means that through the normal course of business, people make mistakes.  Tax collectors, abstractor, buyers and sellers - it's normal and someone has to fix it.  Without owner coverage in place I will NOT pay for unpaid taxes that the tax collector mistakenly said were paid.  If the client did not buy owner coverage, they are on their own.   They have to pay the tax and hope to recover from the seller because we know the tax collector isn't going to pay.  In Pennsylvania our tax collection system is ridiculously unreliable.  It's the most common owner claim I deal with.  Tax collector made a mistake.  I pay the tax to stop a tax sale and protect my insured homeowner.  I go after the seller and hope to recover the cash.  Depending on the amount and probable resolution I may or may not involve my title underwriter.

I have yet to see a claim refused by my title underwriter that involved an issue that should be covered.

I have seen refusals only when the issue clearly was not covered.  As a title agent, I go to great pains to make sure my lenders and homebuyers understand before they close what will be covered and what will not.  This is part of the education we need.  Title agents need to know how to do this and real estate professionals need to understand that this pre-closing disclosure and the choice of a quality title pro making good decisions in the examination are what it's all about. 

I would rather the real estate industry focus on using title professionals who are honest and actually know their business.  Good title agents care about the title underwriter and hook up with an honest company who will pay claims.

Unfortunately, the proliferation of ABAs-joint ventures have taken the focus off good quality and placed it on referral fees - legal or not.  Title agency owned or controlled by non-title professionals only looking at the bottom line don't care about claims.  They only care about splits and easy underwriting.

I've been reading enough of your material to know you were a good title agent who made an unfortunate bad decision.  I also think you have a good handle on what's wrong but I don't think you understand the unintended consequences of this post.

Title insurance is not the culprit.  The culprit is a degradation of quality in standards and training and I think that's your true mission, isn't it?

Anyway, that's my two cents.  Sorry but we can't agree on everything. ;)  Take care and looking forward to your next article.

DC

 

 

 

Jan 11, 2007 01:08 AM
#15
Ed Rybczynski
Integrity Real Estate - Havre de Grace, MD
Your Source for Local Real Estate

Hello Diane

You're right, we may be on different parts of the same page on this one.  But, I've read enough of your writings to have the greatest respect for you professionally.  Even when we disagree, your opinion means a great deal to me and I'll give it consideration.

I do like title insurance; but feel that product and price competition would benefit the consumer.  I strongly oppose monopolictic behavior in consumer markets.  I chose not to purchase a policy myself, yet always recommend it to others.  I posted this article to heighten the level of awareness in the industry.  I see a problem and want to discuss it.

Several years ago, I had a legitimate claim where an underwriter put my client, the policy-holder, through hell.  The matter took years to settle.  We had to wait for the litigation to end for a check to be written. It was a disturbing development for me since I obviously selected the underwriter.  I learned from that experience that many in the industry think that a check for full policy coverage is handed over to the insured when a claim arisis.  It's just not the case. 

Also, a title policy offers no guarantees that the policy-holder will keep the property that they purchased; it just promises monetary re-imbursement up to policy limits.  The generic brochures published by underwriters are always misleading in that regard.

I also believe that your customers leave the table very well informed.  I think we both agree that this is generally not the case.  Glad to see you at "active rain."

Ed

Jan 11, 2007 01:53 AM
Anonymous
Diane Cipa, General Manager, The Closing Specialists®

Yes, that's a good way to put it.  We're on different part of the same page.  

The fight is for competition and freedom and better service and pricing. 

The underlying product, owner coverage, has value and worth.

Title agents and their employees have to make a living and we sell insurance and the business has evolved so that we are paid the lion's share of the premium rather than charging separately for services rendered.

I'm not saying anything you don't know and haven't already commented on.  I'm just putting this out there for folks reading this post.

As a former real estate agent and mortgage lender, I know title insurance is not part of the the normal training program.  Agents and lenders are taught the absolute bare minimum and so have a fuzzy understanding.  It's hard for them to help consumer's understand what title insurance is and why it's a good idea to have it.  It's not their fault - that's just the way it is.  When I became a title agent, I was floored at how much I didn't know.

So, while I think we're saying really the same things - there's a bunch of stuff wrong that needs to be corrected, I don't think we want to put out the message that title insurance is an unnecessary expense. 

I may have overreacted and if so, sorry, but I'm just trying to defend what I think is a misunderstood but valuable product.

  

 

Jan 11, 2007 03:58 AM
#17
ARDELL DellaLoggia
Better Properties Seattle - Kirkland, WA

Hi Ed,

It took me 23 clicks to find you :)  Your topics are too far afield for me at present.  You are in your industry, what I am in mine.  Except I didn't have to get nailed for something first :)  I was always "a hotdog"  I wish you Godspeed, but I can't travel your path.  When chance we meet again...my friend.

Jan 12, 2007 11:06 AM
M. Suzi Woods (Gravenstuk)
NOW Sharing the life and spice of the GC one day at a time - Grand Canyon, AZ
Suzi Woods, Prior Independent REBroker in MS

Ed, this is the blog and incident that I made reference to: Calling Title Experts  . I must have expressed myself badly because I had no response. It was nice to hear from you.

In a nutshell, red flags were raised for me when there had been no mention of a special warranty deed as opposed to a warranty deed. Then the counter included the fact that a special warranty deed would be issued and we the sellers choice of attorney was specified for closing. When I asked what the conditions of the special warranty deed were--all I got was that the seller's attorney always advises him to give special warranty deeds rather than warranty deeds.  Then I hear, "Owner's title insurance will give the new owners a warranty deed".

I am attending a CE title class Tuesday. But at this time I was not aware that Owner's title insurance magically turned a Special Warranty into a Warranty. I must have missed something major in my interpretation or comprehension.

I'm off to research some more, in the meantime--if any of you want to shed some light...

May 20, 2007 11:52 AM
Anonymous
skyfitsheaven

thank you DC & ED for that detailed and clear understanding on both positions of OTP debate. But i have say that i am in complete agreement w/ DC for educating borrowers to have an OTP under their belt. now a days there's so much to deal with and in the current economic enviorment why would we potentionally place borrower at greater risk and not have them purchase the OTP. the cost is an issue to debate on and perphaps need some type of stricter regulation but the majority of home buyers should purchase the OTP in the possibility of something that could go wrong. we want the consumer to covered as much as possible and not take the risk. i'm a mortgage professional who has worked in the title side and on the lender's side. i can agree on both points of view but the overall message we shouls convey to our borrower's is to have as much protection as possible.

thank you DC for the very insightful and detailed response. one is never to old to learn new material.

Feb 17, 2009 09:16 AM
#20