ILNews

Judges reinstate administrative order to refund excessive title insurance premiums

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After finding a trial court exceeded its authority when it reweighed evidence presented to a hearing officer regarding overcharging of title insurance premiums by several agencies, the Indiana Court of Appeals reinstated the administrative order issued by the Indiana commissioner of insurance to refund excessive premiums.

A hearing officer appointed by the Indiana Department of Insurance conducted an investigation into independent non-affiliated agencies operated in the state by Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida to see if the company was charging potentially excessive and discriminatory title insurance rates to Indiana customers. The hearing officer found the rates were excessive and discriminatory and ordered Ticor to refund excessive premiums, pay unpaid premium taxes and establish an internal control process to ensure that the appropriate premium is charged to Ticor’s customers.

Ticor sought judicial review, and Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer reversed, finding the hearing officer applied an arbitrary rate-making standard and, therefore, erred when it found Ticor charged premiums or rates that were unfairly discriminatory. Dreyer also found the hearing officer erred when concluding that Ticor failed to properly monitor its non-affiliated operations’ compliance with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and when it included settlement charges in its calculation of Ticor’s premium tax obligation.

Judge Paul Mathias noted that the hearing officer for IDOI and Dreyer applied differing interpretations of the rate statute, I.C. 27-4-1-4(a)(7)(C)(i). The appellate court found IDOI’s interpretation of the statute – that insurers should be charging comparable insurance premiums to insureds purchasing the same amount of title insurance – to be reasonable. Ticor even acknowledged that its agents should have been charging its Indiana customers the same rates for the same amount of title insurance.

The judges found Ticor had actual authority over its agents for the purpose of selling and issuing Ticor’s title insurance policies and that substantial evidence supports the administrative hearing officer’s conclusions.

The judges remanded Stephen W. Robertson, Ins. Comm. of the State of Indiana, on behalf of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Florida, n/k/a Chicago Title Ins. Co., 49A02-1110-PL-971, for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Just goes to show ya
    I read the case and actually the judges gave deference to the opinion of the insurance department, despite the fact that the insurance department was articulating a completely new interpretation of the statute. This is contrary to most decisions concerning deference issues. Indiana has had very low title insurance rates, but the cost of "gotcha" regulation may very well change that.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT