Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title Insurance Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves title‑insurance rule rewrite after members press to keep stricter language in several sections
Summary
The House Business Committee approved a rewrite of title‑insurance rules (IDAPA 18.05.01) but preserved stricter language in several sections after members warned that replacing directive words with permissive terms could reduce protections.
Shannon Hull (listed in the packet as Market Oversight Bureau Chief, Idaho Department of Insurance) presented IDAPA 18.05.01, a rewrite of the state’s title‑insurance rules. Hull told the committee the rewrite was intended to “simplify, clarify and reduce duplicative language” with statute and that the department had reduced the word count by about 7 percent. She identified one substantive update related to “collected funds” language intended to modernize escrow and payment handling in alignment with neighboring states.
Several representatives pressed the department on language changes that move from the more directive phrasing (“will not” or “will”) to permissive phrasing (“may not” or “may”). Representative Brent Crane and Representative Birch said the shift from mandatory to permissive wording could weaken enforcement and potentially allow title insurers or agents to perform services that border on the practice of law. Director Dean Cameron and department staff said they did not believe the change substantively altered the rule’s effect and offered to restore stricter language for any section that caused committee concern.
Representative Ehlers offered a motion listing multiple sections to leave unchanged (the motion enumerated sections by their IDAPA locations). After discussion the committee adopted a motion to approve the docket with the enumerated exceptions, preserving stricter phrasing in those specified sections. The transcript records the committee vote as a voice vote in favor.
The department said it received no public comments opposing the rewrite during negotiated rulemaking, and staff cited comparable updates in other states. The transcript does not record consumer testimony; committee members raised questions about consumer protection and the possible legal consequences of softer wording.
Next steps: the docket moves forward as approved with the specified exceptions; the transcript does not show a schedule for final filing or publication.
