Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Transportation committee hears support for e‑signatures to speed salvage‑title transfers; insurers seek narrower indemnity
Loading...
Summary
The Vermont House Transportation Committee heard testimony April 14 on Section 9 of a vehicle‑titling bill that would allow electronic signatures and remove notary requirements for salvage‑title transfers. Copart and insurers backed the change for faster settlements, but insurers urged narrowing an indemnity clause; the committee held that subsection pending DMV review.
On April 14, 2026, the Vermont House Transportation Committee heard testimony on Section 9 of a vehicle‑titling bill that would let insurers and vehicle owners use electronic signatures — instead of wet signatures and notarization — to transfer salvage titles after total‑loss insurance settlements. The committee took no vote and left a disputed indemnity clause (subsection c) under review.
Mark Bender, a Copart representative joining by Zoom, told the committee the change would speed claims and reduce delays for Vermont policyholders and salvage markets. "You can have the claim paid all in one phone call," he said, describing how removing mailing and notarization steps can shorten settlement timelines. Bender said Copart operates in Vermont and estimated Copart’s U.S. volume at roughly 3,000,000 vehicles a year, with about half handled using electronic signatures in higher‑volume states.
Jamie Feen, counsel appearing for State Farm Insurance Company and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said insurers support the electronic‑signature process because it helps policyholders receive cash settlements or move vehicles to salvage buyers more quickly. "It really makes the process more efficient, and helps the vehicles get going on their next life," Feen said.
Feen and other insurer representatives, however, raised concerns about subsection c of the draft, which would require insurers to indemnify and hold harmless the Department of Motor Vehicles for claims arising from issuance of a certificate of title under the section. Feen described the language as broad: "Holding us responsible for issues beyond our control seems a little bit broad and perhaps not quite fair," she said, noting downstream parties or subsequent buyers could give rise to claims the insurer could not reasonably prevent.
Committee members pressed witnesses about fraud risk, title‑holder complications and consistency with other states. Bender said he was not aware of fraud tied to e‑signatures in salvage titling since the industry began using electronic processes around 2008–09 and cited federal and national DMV‑member guidance that make the approach feasible for certain title‑related documents. The witnesses noted some states included indemnity language while others did not; witnesses cited Iowa, Minnesota and New Hampshire as having varied approaches, and Massachusetts’ implementational delay after a January 2026 enactment was also discussed.
On lienholders, Feen explained that insurers applying for a salvage certificate must pay lienholders and provide proof of payoff before transferring title. That, she said, is part of the existing title‑transfer process and would remain a prerequisite under the updated procedure.
After discussion, committee members asked the Department of Motor Vehicles and interested parties to propose narrowed indemnity language that would limit insurers’ exposure to issues within their control; they also discussed the option of removing subsection c if it proved unnecessary. The committee did not mark up Section 9 at this session and deferred action until DMV input and revised language are provided. The committee adjourned and is scheduled to resume the next morning at 9:00 a.m., when testimony from the Pew Research Center is expected.
