Judiciary committee tables bill to require published title‑insurance rates, asks Bureau of Insurance to study

The Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor of the Capitol tabled Senate Bill 622, a measure that would require title insurers to adhere to published, filed rates, after extended testimony from industry representatives and commercial real‑estate groups. The committee also asked the Virginia Bureau of Insurance to study title‑insurance pricing and return recommendations.

The bill's sponsor described SB 622 as a move to “provide price predictability for consumers, support more accurate loan estimates and settlement disclosures, and enhance responsible regulatory oversight” by aligning title insurance with regulatory frameworks used in other lines of insurance. The sponsor said the change would preserve negotiated residential discounts with insurer agreement.

Industry witnesses argued the bill would protect consumers and strengthen the market. Joe Shepard, state manager for Fidelity's Mid‑Atlantic operations, told the committee the bill is “a consumer protection and industry health bill,” and said residential buyers historically paid a lower per‑thousand rate than some commercial purchasers; he stated that, across a cited multi‑year period, residential buyers paid roughly $3.86 per $1,000 while some commercial rates averaged about $16 per $1,000. Katherine Crawford, state counsel for First American Title, added that the bill would provide regulatory transparency similar to other insurance lines.

Opponents urged caution. Phil Abraham, representing the Virginia Association for Commercial Real Estate, said commercial and residential title markets are distinct, that commercial transactions are more complex, and that there is no independent, quantitative evidence presented showing the bill would reduce single‑family homeowner costs. Abraham warned the bill could raise costs for multifamily and other commercial projects.

Several legislators pressed proponents on mechanics and consumer protections. Delegate Simon argued the graduated premium schedule already explains the per‑thousand disparities and said he was concerned the bill would reduce negotiation and competition, stating, “I don't think this is a good model for consumers.” Supporters replied that published rates coupled with existing discount mechanisms would preserve consumer protections and predictability.

After discussion, a motion to lay SB 622 on the table accompanied by a request that the committee chair send a letter to the Bureau of Insurance asking for an analysis and recommendations passed by roll call, and SB 622 was tabled by a vote of 14 to 4. The committee's request asks the Bureau to examine the bill's likely effects, data on price disparities, and policy options for reducing closing‑day surprises for homebuyers.

The committee then moved on to remaining calendar business.