Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Digital Titling topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Insurers, dealers weigh e‑title and e‑signature proposals; associations urge safeguards

5589814 · May 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Insurance agents and dealer representatives told the Joint Committee on Transportation they support electronic titling and e‑signature modernization in principle but urged safeguards and preferred House budget language rather than broad, permissive statutory changes.

Nick Fintralakis, representing the Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents, told the Joint Committee on Transportation the association supports modernization of e‑title and e‑signature systems but is cautious about several bills (including H.3676, H.3677 and companion Senate bills) that would broadly require acceptance of any signature or electronic system.

"We are in opposition to House 3677 and Senate 2374. We do support the language that's in the House version of the budget right now, with regard to e title and e signature," Fintralakis said, adding the association is concerned about safeguards to preserve insurance verification, title and registration integrity and Massachusetts' low uninsured motorist rate.

Auto dealer groups and manufacturers also spoke in favor of updating the registry’s digital capabilities. Robert Oganowski and Tom Bonarigo described a desire to streamline pre‑delivery inspection and registration processes and supported House language that they said had been included in prior budgets. Dealer witnesses asked the committee to include provisions for cross‑border titling and to permit secure, vetted electronic signature and title systems rather than a blanket requirement to accept any format.

Witnesses urged careful drafting so that modernization would not inadvertently eliminate controls that verify insurance, prevent fraud, or unintentionally allow uninsurable peer‑to‑peer arrangements without an available insurance market. The committee did not act on the bills at the hearing; proponents asked for additional stakeholder discussion and review.