ILNews

COA affirms cures imposed for title insurance company’s statutory violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found nothing wrong in the trial court’s decision to uphold the Indiana Department of Insurance’s order that found a title insurance company violated several statutes and outlined what the company must do to cure its violations.

In Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, et al, 49A04-1302-PL-84, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. appealed the trial court’s affirmation of the IDOI’s administrative order that was issued after the agency conducted a target market examination of Commonwealth to determine if it was in compliance with state insurance code.

After examining a sample of title insurance transactions in Indiana from Jan. 1, 2005, to Jan. 1, 2010, the companies that conducted the investigation found problems with Commonwealth’s program for pricing title insurance premiums, dubbed the “Cents Per Thousand” program. In this program, an agent pays remittance rate dollars to the underwriter based on a special rate chart rather than relying on the more traditional method of calculating premium for title insurance. The program was discontinued after Commonwealth was acquired by another company in December 2008.

The examination also found that the premium charged to the consumer during the CPT program was not specifically tied to risk. As a result of the program, Commonwealth underpaid approximately $60,000 in premium taxes during the examination period.

The IDOI’s administrative order found Commonwealth violated the Rate Statute, Unsafe Business Practices Statute, and Gross Premium Tax Statute. In order to cure the violations, the IDOI ordered Commonwealth to file premium rates and policy forms with the state agency for approval; recalculate its premium tax liability for Jan. 1, 2005, through Dec. 31, 2009; and other actions.

The trial court upheld the administrative order, concluding the IDOI properly interpreted Indiana’s insurance laws, that substantial evidence established that Commonwealth violated the statutes, and that IDOI ordered appropriate curative measures.

Commonwealth appealed to the COA, contending that the trial court erred in accepting the state agency’s interpretations of the Rate, Unsafe Business Practices, Gross Premium Tax and Cure statutes. But the appeals judges agreed with the trial court’s determinations.

There is ample evidence in the record that Commonwealth charged an excessive rate and an unfairly discriminatory rate. The judges also rejected the company’s assumption that the IDOI was required to make findings that Commonwealth’s business practices threatened its solvency in order to determine that it violated the Unsafe Business Practices Statute.

The cures imposed by the IDOI for the statutory violations are authorized by the Cure Statute, the COA held. The agency was within its authority to order Commonwealth to recalculate its premium tax liability for the examination period, and it has the authority under the Cure Statute to order Commonwealth to perform a retrospective actuarial analysis of its rates.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT