Did we establish that the OP is in a state where attorneys would get such a commission? That does not happen where I live.

You have more skin in the game than your lender. Their policy will not protect you.

It is not the attorneys who are getting the commission, it is the title agent and settlement company who gets it.

Shop title companies and get title insurance. My husband is an attorney who always insists on title insurance. Here is an example why: We recently paid cash for a property so title insurance was optional. Turned out the seller had been married twice during his ownership and had outstanding judgements from exes and other personal/business settlements that were outstanding and could have been a nightmare for us down the line because he didn’t really have clear title to sell. The title company uncovered, got all parties to sign off and made sure he had clear title to sell. And if some other issue turns up down the line, we’re covered.

Loudermilk, the OP said he/she read that her closing attorneys would be making a hefty commission from the sale and they were the ones encouraging him/her to get it.

I assume the OP didn't realize exactly who they were talking to when they said "the scare tactic... thrown at me by the closing attorneys". Someone closing on a standard new build home would be interacting with title/settlement company clerks/agents, who are also the ones giving the insurance sales pitch.

Few clarifiations. I don’t have an option to shop around as the builder makes it mandatory to use closing attorneys they have a relationship with. I have spoken to few folks, like my legal council, realestate agent etc mortgage company, and they all seem to favor buying it. Finally on the question of mechanical lein, my builder will be giving me a full release at close.

I found out that a release of lien does not preclude a lien being placed on your property. It just gives you someone to sue.

I am under the impression that any subs who worked on the house during construction couldn't come after me or if they did, I have a recourse with the lien release...

I don’t have an option to shop around as the builder makes it mandatory.

The builder has you by the proverbial 'you know what'. They can charge whatever they want if you're forced to use this company.

But if title insurance is a legitimate product that can be freely purchased, can't you just buy it from another title/settlement company, or the insurance company directly?

Why would the insurance product need to be tied solely to the builder's company?

"But if title insurance is a legitimate product that can be freely purchased, can't you just buy it from another title/settlement company, or the insurance company directly?

Because the builders mandated closing attorneys only use one title insurance company and when I called the various title insurance firms, they told me the attorney who is doing the closing is the one who provides the insurance...so in nutshell, I can't bring my own title insurance to the closing.

I am under the impression that if I choose to buy my title insurance after close, I can go with anyone I choose.

Then just buy it like you would any other consumer product...shop around and buy the policy with the best value. No reason to be held hostage and shook down by the mob's, I mean builder's, business associates.

@Loudermilk I assure you that I am actually correct. The commission a salesperson makes or the profit a professional makes is not relevant to your decision and is a textbook example of how cognitive biases often lead to bad decisions.

In this specific situation the OP is being offered title insurance for $2,500. The benefits of that insurance are (1) protection of the OP's investment, and (2) the peace of mind provided from knowing that investment is protected. Suppose the OP paid $400,000 down and financed $100,000. Further, suppose that a title claim does happen, and the title insurance does protect the OP. The benefit the OP will have received is protection of their $400,000 at a cost of $2,500. The commission that the provider received doesn't change that benefit in any way. Whether $2,000 of that $2,500 was commission or only $100 of the $2,500 was commission doesn't change the benefit it provided to the OP.

Of course, finding insurance cheaper will be better, but only because you are paying less not because there is less commission.

The danger of deciding how much profit someone deserves should be apparent on a home building forum. We sometimes see threads complaining about how much profit the builder, or tile setter, or plumber, etc., makes. Another simple example suppose two tile setters bid your job. Person A will take their time and do a perfect job, taking 30 hours to finish and bidding $3,000 dollars. Person B is experienced and fast and will do a perfect job, taking only 15 hours to finish and bidding $1,800 + $1,000 commission. Clearly Person B is making more profit as they are making more money per hour and charging a commission... However, you are paying $200 less and therefore you are better off.

The things relevant to this type of decision are simply the cost and benefit. Lowering the cost or increasing the benefit are the only two ways to create more value and vice versa.

---

People who are often affected by cognitive biases in decision making will have this emotional appeal about getting ripped off by commissions. This is an improper understanding. Something isn't a good deal when it doesn't create value in excess of it's cost. The same proposition with lower commissions wouldn't suddenly be a better deal.

Loudermilk, in some states, closing attorneys DO make a commission on the title insurance policy premiums, so it depends where the OP is located.

I assure you that I am actually correct. The commission a salesperson makes or the profit a professional makes is not relevant to your decision.

Of course, finding insurance cheaper will be better, but only because you are paying less not because there is less commission.

This tortured logic goes against all common sense. One simple example...

I buy a new Honda vehicle and wish to purchase a HondaCare extended warranty. The product & benefits are exactly the same, regardless of which dealer it is purchased from, and the actual cost of the warranty is the same for all dealerships. The only difference for the consumer is how much commission & profit each dealership tries to squeeze from the sale.

Dealer A - pays salesman $250 commission, sales manager $250 commission, finance manager $500 commission. Cost to consumer = $2000.

Dealer B - pays finance manager $100 commission. Cost to consumer = $1000

Commissions are the sole driving factor for this price discrepancy. It is imperative for educated consumers to know when commissions are involved, as it means the price of the product is highly variable and often negotiable.

@bry911

Interesting that you completely ignored my example, which clearly disproved your illogical claims regarding commissions...

"You should never look at the profit or commission that someone gets for providing a benefit or service to you." "The commission a salesperson makes or the profit a professional makes is not relevant to your decision."

No consumer advocate or personal finance expert would ever educate a consumer to IGNORE the fact that certain standardized products are sold using a business model involving substantial commissions, which results in significant price volitility for the consumer.

There was no way for you to know if the price was caused by high commissions. you can't know whether the price quoted was reasonable or inflated by commissions.

I quoted a title agency that admitted these companies keep 70-85% of the title insurance cost as a commission, with only 15-30% being the actual cost of the insurance. Any reasonable person would conclude that a 70-85% commission is "inflated".

We never buy vehicle extended warranties because an unexpected multi-thousand dollar bill won't leave us stranded. But a tens (or hundreds) of thousands dollar bill is another matter!

Of course, shopping around for a competitive title rate is a good idea if it's allowed.

I really don't want to continue arguing, but the examples prove an incomplete understanding. I am also under no delusion that I will be able to convince everyone.

I don't know what qualifies one as an expert in personal finance, but I strongly suspect I am ahead of the curve on a few aspects of relevant cost analysis and decision making. @Loudermilk is asserting that you should avoid products and services with high commissions, which is not the same thing as saying you should avoid overpaying for products and services because of high commissions. The two things may sound similar but the difference can be important and can be seen in this thread.

Someone who thinks that high commissions are always a rip-off might advise you to avoid products and services that create value for you just because they are profitable to the salespeople. In reality there may not be a suitable low commission alternative and thus the high commissioned product still creates value.

---

certain standardized products are sold using a business model involving substantial commissions, which results in significant price volitility for the consumer.

The above statement is either incorrect or incomplete. High commissions wouldn't create volatility, you could argue that varied commissions and opaque pricing create volatility, but again, that really wasn't the position represented.

There are plenty of ways to figure out if the OP was quoted a poor price and asserting that an admission from a firm that we don't know the OP is using is proof of the OP getting ripped off is just silly.

A final comment...

It is often a good idea to see if a price is competitive.

It is also a good idea to see if a competitive price creates value for you. You may find that one-size-fits-all consumer advice doesn't work well for you. So if you are rough on your phone, maybe spring for the replacement plan even if it isn't a good deal for many people.

What you should not do is worry about the profit that someone else makes for providing you with a competitive price. Choosing to go with low profit builders, plumbers, electricians, etc. is much more likely to get you poor quality, leaky home, with a few shocks thrown in for good measure. I am confident no consumer advocates will challenge that advice.

@bry911

I am ahead of the curve on a few aspects of relevant cost analysis and decision making.

Your advice seems to indicate otherwise...

"You should never look at the profit or commission that someone gets for providing a benefit or service to you." "The commission a salesperson makes or the profit a professional makes is not relevant to your decision."

asserting that you should avoid products and services with high commissions

This is a good rule of thumb for savvy consumers. Products/services that use a high commission sales model...timeshares, extended warranties, whole life insurance, loaded/high expense mutual funds, multi-level marketing businesses.

Generally speaking, these types of products/services should be avoided, wouldn't you agree?

not the same thing as saying you should avoid overpaying for products and services because of high commissions.

This is also a good rule of thumb. For example, I wouldn't recommend buying extended car warranties, but if you must have one for 'piece of mind' then...save $1K-$2K by purchasing from an online dealership charging no/minimal commission vs. the local dealer that tacks on ridiculous commissions.

Someone who thinks high commissions are always a rip-off might advise you to avoid products and services that create value for you just because they are profitable to the salespeople.

Industries using high commission sales models are absolutely areas consumers need to be careful with, but not necessarily always avoid. My home/auto agent makes a commission off me, but I minimize my costs by carrying high deductibles and not adding on a bunch of high margin/low value riders to the policy.

What you should not do is worry about the profit that someone else makes for providing you with a competitive price.

Again, this is bad advice in general. A basic example...

You want a new car and determine the dealer cost is $20K, yet the dealer is asking $30K. Yet you advise the consumer to stick their head in the sand, ignore the available information, instead of using it to negotiate a better deal?

Guys, this commsision debate is not helping the OP with his/her decision. The title agent does not make its commission from sitting in a room and talking you into buying the insurance. They are getting this as compensation from the underwriter for being the ones on the ground, searching public records (sometimes deciphering hand-written documents from centuries ago, at least where I live), figuring our how to cure defects, verifying the attached property description, and taking on LIABILITY. If the agent misses something in the public record (which is often a confusing mess), THEY are the ones paying on the resulting claim. Only if the matter does not appear in the record at all does the underwriter pay. They are earning what they get paid.

They are getting this as compensation from the underwriter for being the ones on the ground, searching public records...

This is 100% not true! All this work is done as part of their normal jobs, regardless of whether title insurance is purchased. Their compensation comes from the various title examination fees and closing/settlement fees listed on your settlement statement.

The commission comes from the underwriter. I am stating what the underwriters consider part of the work being compensated. ETA: but, as you can see by my all caps above, the liability the agent takes on is a major part of it.

Here is some interesting facts about what is involved and what a insurance company does (Source LendingTree.com)

What does a title company do before issuing title insurance?

Before it can issue title insurance, a title company must find out if the property has any title defects or encumbrances by conducting a title search on the property.

This title search involves the following steps:

RESEARCH PUBLIC RECORDS ERRORS, LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES: Sometimes public record errors happen. For instance, a property release from a paid off mortgage goes unrecorded and results in a lien on the property. Or a previous owner employs contract work but doesn’t complete the payment, also resulting in a lien on the property. A title company will research these public releases and obtain necessary information from previous owners and lenders to confirm any liens on the property. It will also verify that any illegal deeds or forgeries aren’t enforceable.

VERIFY BOUNDARIES, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENT OF PROPERTY: The last thing you want is an unfriendly neighbor making a dispute over the lines of your property. A title company verifies the dimensions of your property and its easements, which is the right to use the property of another.

INVESTIGATE FORGERIES, IMPERSONATIONS, ILLEGAL DEEDS AND MISSING HEIRS: Another worry is that someone has a forged or illegal deed to your property, or a previous owner passed away without a will and has missing heirs that may claim your property as their right. A quitclaim is a document that transfers ownership from one person to another. A title company will analyze all of the documents related to fraudulent ownership transfers, such as quitclaims, and follow appropriate state laws to properly notify all heirs of the documents needed to release their interest in your property.

What is in a title commitment or preliminary title report?

A title report compiles all of a title company’s research as part of the title insurance process. The report contains three sections: Schedule A, Schedule B-1 and Schedule B-2.

Schedule A. This section lays out all the facts about the purchase or refinance: These include title certification date, information on the insured, the type and amount of insurance being issued and how current owners hold ownership, referred to as title vesting.
Schedule B-1. This section summarizes the documentation that parties need to provide before the title company can issue title insurance. These documents can include: releases of tax liens, deeds of trusts from previous owners, estate documents, power of attorney documents, death certificates of owners who passed away, judgments and corrections.
Schedule B-2. This section lists the items that the title company won’t insure. The typical exceptions include easements, mineral reservations and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs), which are restrictions created by the original landowner

Some states, including Texas and Florida, have title insurance premiums fixed by the government. In Texas, a $100,000 policy would cost $832, which is less than 1%. Iowa’s government underwrites title insurance policies, which leads to premiums as low as $110 for a $500,000 policy.

All of the work listed in the "What does a title company do before issuing title insurance?" is already performed by the title company as part of the closing process, regardless of whether title insurance is purchased. Is it not? Do they skip all of this work if title insurance isn't purchased?

@HU-458010923 - Title companies are actually title insurance companies. A title search is done by a title company to issue a preliminary title report. That report is a basis for surety and not a surety itself. So, in most states, the report is used as testament of insurability.

As such, title companies are not liable for title defects they missed, because the purpose of the preliminary report was for the title insurance company to establish the insurability of the property and so does not act as a guarantee of a clean title. In other words, title companies typically can't be sued for things they missed on the title search unless you actually purchase title insurance. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but I certainly wouldn't rely on being an exception.

Just an FYI, so you understand the limits of the services without insurance. Check your state’s laws to be sure.

I am reminded of a schoolyard reading this thread.

Title companies are actually title insurance companies.

This is an extremely important point for consumers to understand. Insurance agents are notorious for pushing a variety of products/riders/policies with extremely questionable value. This would certainly explain the "scare tactic" and sales pitches the OP describes the title company using in trying to sell a title insurance policy.

the purpose of the preliminary report was for the title insurance company to establish the insurability of the property and so does not act as a guarantee of a clean title. Title companies typically can't be sued for things they missed on the title search unless you actually purchase title insurance. Of course, there are exceptions to this,

When I buy a house, I'm charged several title-related fees on the settlement statement, regardless of whether I purchase title insurance or not...Title Closing Fee, Title Exam Fee, fees for surveys/binders/endorsements/ect.

Even though I pay for these services, it should be assumed the title company won't stand behind their work, unless I buy their title insurance?

And if the lender has their own title insurance policy (effective for the 30 year life of the loan), why does a homeowner need a separate policy (assuming they sell within 30 years)?

@Loudermilk - Those are good questions....

Please note, we are discussing title companies (a.k.a. title insurance companies) doing title searches and there is always a danger in general discussions of legal precedents that may vary between states.

Even though I pay for these services, it should be assumed the title company won't stand behind their work, unless I buy their title insurance?

That is correct. A title search is simply a search to establish insurability and you generally have no standing to sue if you forego the insurance. This is weird because title companies actually do clear up cloudy titles to get to insurability, but they are still not usually liable for problems without insurance.

Title searches usually only go back to the most recent transfer and are not a full analysis of a property's history. So in the OP's case, the title search is likely going to begin at the point that the builder/developer purchased the property rather than look back generations. In cases where the property hasn't changed hands in several decades the title search may not even go back to the last transfer. Again, this is because a title search is for insurability of the property and any claim that is more than 20 years old is statistically unlikely to surface and therefore the property is insurable.

There are other services you can request, such as creating a new abstract of title, but that would be significantly more than title insurance, in fact, they are likely to require you to get title insurance as part of the service.

if the lender has their own title insurance policy (effective for the 30 year life of the loan), why does a homeowner need a separate policy (assuming they sell within 30 years)?

There are a few reasons for this. First, purchase money loans enjoy special consideration in most states, so the lien can endure many title claims. Many (I believe it is most) states allow a lender to retain first position for all new title claims. So if a new lien is filed on the old owner (e.g. mechanic's lien), or a new inheritor comes forward, etc., their claim would go behind the lien by the mortgage company.

If there was an existing lien that was missed by the title company, the company has three options to remedy.

(1) Pay off the lien - this protects the buyer and lender.

(2) Pay off loan - The title company would assume the lien (they would likely cancel it) and the buyer would be left to deal with the original lien on the property.

(3) Pay the existing lienholder to subordinate their lien - In this case they pay the original lienholder a fee to allow the lender to go back into first place. The owner is left to deal with the original lien. In the case of the OP, who is putting down more than 80%, the bank may not even care if their lien is subordinated.

Finally, and related to number 2, if there is an event that isn't curable, (zoning problem, survey problem, etc.) the title company is just going to pay off the loan and the OP loses all their equity.

I am not really advocating the OP get title insurance, that really depends on their particular region, situation, risk appetite, ability to absorb the loss, etc. I am just providing information so the OP can make the decision that is right for them.

I was born in Kentucky, and it seems that everyone and their grandmother has a claim to every decent piece of property, so were I buying a property outside of Louisville or Lexington, I would absolutely get title insurance. In my current state, titles are generally much less contested.

A title search is simply a search to establish insurability

If I'm not buying title insurance, then why are these feels always automatically added to the settlement statement? Shouldn't these fees only be charged if I agree to purchase the insurance?

All other forms of insurance allow you to shop around, get multiple quotes, work with an indenendent agent, ect. Can the same be said for title insurance?

So if a new lien is filed on the old owner

You mention one specific type of title issue, a lien on the property. But what happens with other issues? In the only time you've used title insurance in 30 years, it was an obscure issue with the deed that required the title insurance to fix via lawyers/court appearances. Would you have received those same protections had you not purchased insurance, but the mortgage company had?

"

You should never look at the commission that someone gets for providing a benefit or service to you. It is a recipe for bad decisions.

Possibly the worst consumer advice I've ever heard. Every extended warranty salesperson, timeshare pitchman, title insurance agent (even commissioned investment brokers and whole life insurance agents) would love for all consumers to take this advice."

It's actually good advice.....you should make the decision based on your own needs, wants, priorities, and level of comfort with risk. You should not make your decision on someone else's income choices......You should make the decision that's best for you, regardless of how it affects them. Don't decline something that gives you benefits you want, just because it will make the seller a lot of money.

You should make the decision that's best for you, regardless of how it affects them.

Isn't it best for a consumer to not overpay for a product/service? To be knowledgeable about the product/service before buying? To know what the underlying costs are and what drives pricing?

I already gave this example...You buy a new car and want to purchase an extended warranty from Honda. You have two choices:

Agree with the hard sell/scare tactics put on by the local dealer, pay $2500, with much of that going to paying commissions to the salesman, sales manager, finance manager, ect.

Buy the same exact warranty from another dealer with a different business model, pay $1000, with little/none of that going to commissions.

Insure if you can't afford the potential loss. In my case, that is health insurance, and liability insurance as the potential price of not having the insurance is all my assets. I don't have collision insurance on my car as potential price/payout might be $5,000.   

If your finances can handle the unlikely hit of losing all your equity, the insurance choice becomes a matter of balancing cost of buying versus chance of loss. If your house is only a small share of your total net worth the situation is different than if your home equity is most of your net worth.

As the seller, when title insurance money comes out of my check, I was presented with an acknowledgement form for the title company paying my attorney as their agent. I don't remember the total cost of the policy but he received $800, in addition to the $600 fee for his services. (Sale price $130,000) I understand the situation isn't the same but wanted to comment how my attorney received a very large chunk of the policy cost.

" Isn't it best for a consumer to not overpay for a product/service? "

It depends on what they get in addition to that product/service - there might be intangibles that are important to that individual consumer but you think are unnecessary and not worth paying for. Maybe you buy it from the first dealer because you've don't have the time or energy to shop around (for all sorts of possible reasons)......That extra $1500 is worth it to you in savings of time, energy, and worry. Who makes money from that extra cost isn't as important as what it buys for you.

Now, another consumer may have the luxury of time and gas money, and can shop around for a lower price on the extended warranty, and a third consumer might not buy the extra warranty at all, because they don't value what it gives them and feels that they can replace those benefits themselves. What's best for "the consumer" will vary with each individual consumer and what they need at the moment. The only time it's a problem is if the consumer doesn't have the ability to find what best suits their needs.

In most states title insurance rates are regulated by the insurance commission. While there are high commissions on title insurance, shopping around is unlikely to get you significant savings. The big four underwriters publish their rates so they are easy to compare and they are pretty close. In my state a half million dollars of coverage varied less than $100 between them.

In any state which regulates rates, agents are not allowed to add additional commissions or charge anything above the approved rates. The only way an agent could increase their commission in most states is by issuing two policies rather than doing a simultaneous issue, but I suspect you could report them to the insurance commissioner for that.

---

I don't know how people are purportedly saving thousands of dollars by shopping around. I guess their state doesn't have rates approved by an insurance commissioner, but that would be abnormal. If you have questions about the rates you are quoted for title insurance, call your state's insurance commissioner and ask about rate approval.

Thanks everyone for weighing in. We all have to make personal choices in these matters and getting different perspectives helps in the process. Hopeful, like me, your comments provide further education to consumers like me, which I very much appreciate.

Like I mentioned initially, my situation is kind of unique. A resale presents complex challenges as the home has gone through various ownerships etc. In my case, I need to get comfortable with the fact that the builder/developer (in my case a nationally recognized builder), did his due diligence before buying the land to develop.

I perceive the risk is low, not zero, of anything popping up in future. The additional risk is sub-contractors lien for non payment etc., and in my case the builder is providing the following: "The Purchase Agreement requires under section A - TITLE AND POSSESSION, subsection 1 DEED – At Closing, Seller will deliver a warranty deed to Buyer, conveying the Property free and clear of all liens except those incident to the funding of the Buyer’s Loan, …. "

My lender has received the title search results from the closing attorneys office and the underwriter is reviewing to move my loan application from conditional to approved. I asked the attorneys for a copy and they want me to fork out an additional $75 for it, even though I am already paying for it as part of my closing ( *#!!K). This is a data point for me if I will spend the $2,500 or not.

Title insurance in some states is regulated and while the amount is tied to the price of your home, and there are additional fees if there is a mortgage, in Texas the cost is exactly the same regardless of the company you choose. It may be required by your lender if you are getting a loan. In Texas the title insurance is typically paid for by the seller to give the buyer confidence that they are purchasing property with clear title. The lan fees are a buyer cost for their loan.

Loan fees

In most states title insurance rates are regulated by the insurance commission. While there are high commissions on title insurance, shopping around is unlikely to get you significant savings. In any state which regulates rates, agents are not allowed to add additional commissions or charge anything above the approved rates.

Is the rate set/regulated for the insurance product itself OR the cost of the insurance+commission?

If the link I found was accurate, commission makes up 70%-85% of the cost of title insurance. In the OP's case, that would mean the insurance costs ~$500, with commissions making up the remaining $2000.

So if just the $500 is set/regulated, then the OP has a LOT of leeway in finding a lower rate.

Is the rate set/regulated for the insurance product itself OR the cost of the insurance+commission?

Insurance agents are not insurance resellers. There is only one insurance rate, which is the entire cost of the policy. The entire amount is paid to the underwriter, who then pays a commission back to the agent (it is similar to any other pay arrangement).

Agents are generally not allowed to skim commissions. If the policy premium is $2,500 the agent must submit all $2,500 to the underwriter and can't charge any more than $2,500.

---

Also it is important to remember that in insurance commissions are gross margin and not profit. As @blueskysunnyday mentioned above the agent takes on additional liabilities when you pay for title insurance (unlike homeowners and other types of insurance). The title agent will be required to cure many title issues without reimbursement from the underwriter. For example, if the agent spends 40 hours to cure a title issue that surfaces after the insurance is issued, the agent is unlikely to receive any compensation for their time... that is what their commission is for in the first place.

The title agent will be required to cure many title issues without reimbursement from the underwriter. if the agent spends 40 hours to cure a title issue that surfaces after the insurance is issued, the agent is unlikely to receive any compensation for their time... that is what their commission is for in the first place.

The insurance is from the company underwriting the policy, not the title agent. And given that this insurance lasts the lifetime you own the property, this doesn't seems odd.

What if the title agent dies, retires, closes the business, moves states, changes professions, ect. during the 10, 20, 50+ years you own the property?

“The insurance is from the company underwriting the policy, not the title agent.”

There is a reason they are called agents and not salespeople. They are representatives of the title underwriter. They agree to certain responsibilities when they agree to be an agent. If the title agent misses something that they can’t correct, it is the title agent who is sued and the title agent’s errors and omissions insurance that pays out in that suit rather than the underwriter.

“What if the title agent dies, retires, closes the business, moves states, changes professions, ect. during the 10, 20, 50+ years you own the property?”

The same thing that happens with all other insurance. If an agent closes their office, they will arrange for a different agent to take over their policies. If an underwriter becomes insolvent the state’s insurance fund will take over and either pay out or assign the policies. In the event of death or insolvency of the agent, their policies are assigned to someone else, but I am not sure if the underwriter or insurance commissioner does that, my gut is that the insurance commission has authority but likely allows the underwriter to assign with their approval. When policies are assigned to different agents the new agents are given some type of compensation or reimbursement.

ETA: These questions are exactly why insurance is regulated and why there is an insurance commissioner.

The same thing that happens with all other insurance. If an agent closes their office, they will arrange for a different agent to take over their policies.

But you said previously..."the agent takes on additional liabilities when you pay for title insurance (unlike homeowners and other types of insurance)...required to cure many title issues without reimbursement from the underwriter....agent is unlikely to receive any compensation for their time... that is what their commission is for in the first place. "

For other types of insurance, agents would gladly take over another's book of business because it is an ongoing source of income, and they don't assume "additional liabilities."

But why would anyone take over a title insurance policy since they have no idea about the original title agent's quality of work AND must assume all of their liability/risk AND don't get the fat commission check?

If the title agent misses something that they can’t correct, it is the title agent who is sued and the title agent’s errors and omissions insurance that pays out in that suit rather than the underwriter.

Who sues the title agent? Who gets sued if the title agent moves, retires, dies?

Also, you reported earlier, that "The title insurance fixed all that mess without bothering me and it required multiple court appearances to fix." and "The attorney fees to resolve the issue were greater than the property value." So it was not the title agent who had to fix the issues? It was not the title agent's "errors and omissions" insurance that paid for this?

Please. Stop.

@Seabornman -Why in the world would you bump a thread from the fifth page to request a halt in the discussion? Just let it die a natural death instead of bringing it back to the front page.

@bry911 - just to irritate you.

I will argue that this thread is one of the more complete resources for information on title insurance I have seen. I do understand that it is mostly one person arguing the pros and one the cons, but if you look at the typical thread on gardenweb this is rather tame.

No one here has accused the OP of not spending enough money or not doing their due diligence, Verbo hasn’t posted some ridiculous statement and then switched to Creative Cabinets, Raimondi, and other avatars to fan the flames. No one has even flamed the OP for buying a tract home.

So with all due respect… NO.

ETA: @Seabornman see below for why you don’t bump the thread.

More information to consider...

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/27/1139307743/title-insurance-is-burning-through-homebuyers-pockets-and-filling-up-their-lawye

https://www.businessinsider.com/title-insurance-scam-mortgage-homebuying-2022-2

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-title-insurance-is-a-total-scam/

@bry911

I'm curious, why did you delete the lengthy post you made, responding to my post from Sunday?

More on Texas title insurance below.

Like all lines of insurance, title is highly regulated by the government. In Texas, the Department of Insurance is the state agency charged with oversight of title insurance. In fact, Texas has the most tightly regulated title insurance industry in the United States. Both rates and forms are standardized, meaning the language of the policy is the same, regardless of the title company (also known as an underwriter) issuing the policy, and the premium amount charged for the policy is the same no matter which title insurance agent you choose.

When you purchase a title policy in Texas, you should know that the rates, terms and coverages are set by the Texas Department of Insurance, and all title professionals are legally bound to those requirements. Because title professionals can’t compete on price or product, they must compete on the quality of service they provide.