Committee approves title-insurance rule rewrite after debate over 'will' vs. 'may' language

The House Business Committee reviewed IDAPA 18.05.01, a Department of Insurance rewrite of title-insurance rules that the department said was intended to modernize and reduce duplication with statute. Shannon Hole (Market Oversight Bureau Chief, Idaho Department of Insurance) told the committee the rewrite clarifies section 41-2708 of Idaho Code and modernizes the treatment of collected funds; she said the rule was developed through negotiated rulemaking and that the department received no opposition.

Several representatives pressed the department about wording changes that replaced stronger prohibitory terms with more permissive language. Representative Brent Crane and Representative Birch both raised concerns about multiple instances where the rule replaces "will not" (or "will") with "may not" (or "may"), asking whether that change could permit conduct previously prohibited (for example, whether title insurers or agents could perform acts that "constitute the practice of law"). Director Dean Cameron and the department said they did not see a meaningful difference between the terms in context and that the change was intended to make the rule more permissive where appropriate; the director offered to revert language if the committee preferred.

Representative Ehlers moved an exception motion to preserve multiple sections (he read a list of section references that he wanted left unchanged). The committee debated the scope of the motion and whether additional "will/may" instances existed elsewhere in the rule. The transcript records the motion being offered and the committee answering "Aye" when asked, and the chair proceeded after the vote; the recording indicates committee action to leave the listed sections unchanged but does not contain a line-by-line roll call.

Why it matters: Representatives argued the single-word changes could alter obligations or enforcement in ways that matter to consumers and to legal practice around title insurance. The department said the changes were intended to modernize the rule without substantive policy shifts.

Action: Representative Ehlers offered a motion to approve IDAPA 18.05.01 "with the exception" of specified sections (detailed in the transcript). The committee recorded the motion and voiced approval; the transcript indicates the committee then proceeded with the docket. No consumer testimony was recorded.

Next steps: The rule will proceed according to IDAPA procedures with the committee's stated exceptions; the transcript does not record any additional amendments or implementation dates.