|
Good news has
recently emerged out of the title industry. The American Land
Title Association Board of Governors has adopted significant
revisions to its basic model title insurance policy form. The
revised ALTA 2006 title insurance policy constitutes a
significant upgrade of the basic policy template that has been
relied upon in the vast majority of real estate transactions
occurring in this country for well over a decade. The 2006
policy form is much clearer in its terms, logical in its format
and, expresses a meaningful expansion of available coverage and
benefits. ALTA has, through the issuance of the new policy,
provided a tool that is responsive to the demands and
expectations of the contemporary real estate market consistent
with the increased pace and sophistication of modern real estate
transactional practice.
It is not
surprising that the ALTA policy currently in use, revised and
adopted in 1992, has been met with considerable criticism since
its inception. In recent years, it has become apparent that
provisions needed to be redrafted so as to comport with the
demand of consumers as well as interpretations of judges in a
number of litigated cases.
One major
defect of the 1992 policy, for example, has been a lack of
clarity with respect to the extent and type of coverage provided
under its terms. Though certain basic coverages provided in the 1992
policy are expressed in clear and explicit language, other
coverages are said to be “inferred” through various “exceptions”
to exclusions written into the policy. These exceptions,
otherwise known as “carve outs”, found their way into the ALTA
policy in response to the objection of the market to particular
exclusions. Item No. 1(a) of the “Exclusions from Coverage”,
for example, excludes coverage under the policy for loss based
upon the exercise of governmental enforcement of zoning laws and
certain other laws affecting the use and enjoyment of the land
“except
to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice
of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or
alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the
public records at Date of Policy.” (emphasis added)
Where notice
has been duly recorded, coverage would be said to be founded
upon the exception (“carve out”) to the governmental regulatory
exclusion and, therefore, would be considered to be “covered”
under the terms of the policy.
The question of
whether specific coverage could be properly inferred through the
tangled web of policy exclusions and exceptions often had to be
resolved through litigation. The judicial principal that has
emerged out of relevant case law is that policy coverage must be
set forth in the insuring clauses of a policy and may not be
inferred through policy exclusions and exceptions. The 2006
ALTA policy form is consistent with this precept: coverage is
clearly and positively expressed within the insuring provisions
of the policy and each insuring provision is neatly paired with
a particular exclusion that is consistent with that coverage.
Exceptions to exclusions are no longer relied upon as a source
of coverage.
In addition,
broad categories of coverage set forth in the policy have,
generally, been clarified to include certain specific
situations. The traditional “defect in title” category of owner
coverage now explicitly includes, for example, “a document
executed under a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power
of attorney.” Coverage is modernized so as to extend to a
“failure to perform those acts necessary to create a document by
electronic means authorized by law.” Note that the policy
provides that risks specified as covered under the terms of the
policy and are among, but do not comprise the exclusive, risks
that are covered.
Owner coverage has also been enhanced. For example, the
definition of the “Insured” named in Schedule A now includes,
explicitly, the trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the
named insured for estate planning purposes, certain successors
to an insured by way of dissolution, conversion and other
processes, and certain grantees in transactions between related
entities. In addition, the owner policy now provides coverage
with respect to most matters appearing within the time “gap”
between the date of the policy and the recording of the deed or
other instrument of title. Though this particular time gap is
not the same title “gap” that has recently been of concern in
Maryland, the change is significant in other jurisdictions
wherein different practices prevail with respect to the dating
of the policy.
Lender coverage has also been clarified so as to
include certain specific situations. As in the owner’s policy,
traditional coverage for loss due to “any defect in or
encumbrance on the title” now explicitly includes failure to
create or record documents by electronic means. In addition,
absent a specific survey exception, the policy provides coverage
for loss due to encroachment, encumbrance, violation or other
adverse circumstance affecting title that would be disclosed by
an accurate survey of the land. The term “encroachment” has been
expanded to include, in addition to encroachment onto the land
of existing improvements, encroachment of an existing
improvement located on the land onto adjoining land. Moreover,
the loan policy has been enhanced through the expansion of the
term “indebtedness” so as to include, in addition to principal,
certain construction loan advances, interest, prepayment
premiums, expenses of foreclosure, taxes, insurance and
reasonable expenditures to prevent deterioration of
improvements. (Note: though these items may be included within
the measure of loss, the policy does not necessarily insure the
validity, enforceability or priority of the insured mortgage as
security with respect to these advances)
Furthermore,
claims administration under the terms of the new policy has been
changed significantly. If an insurer seeks to prosecute or
defend a claim and is unsuccessful in establishing the title or
the lien, the amount of insurance under the policy is increased
by ten percent. The insured claimant would then have the choice
of determining loss as of the date the claim was made or as of
the date the claim is settled and paid. Note that an insured is
no longer automatically required to submit a proof of loss
statement but is required to submit a proof of loss statement
only to the extent such a statement is actually needed by the
insurer to administer the claim.
Other
significant changes include the following:
-
A creditor’s rights provision has
been incorporated as a covered risk and includes coverage with
respect to certain transactions occurring prior to the
creation of the insured interest.
-
The term “indebtedness” under the
2006 Loan policy has been broadened to include, in addition to
principal, certain construction loan advances, interest,
prepayment premiums, expenses of foreclosure, taxes, insurance
and reasonable expenditures to prevent deterioration of
improvements. (Note: though these items may be included
within the measure of loss, the policy does not necessarily
insure the validity, enforceability or priority of the insured
mortgage as security with respect to these advances)
-
Enhanced mechanics lien coverage
has been incorporated into the 2006 policy and the mechanics
lien exclusion appearing in the 1992 policy has been deleted.
-
With respect to the new Loan
policy, payments made toward payoff of a mortgage will reduce
the amount of the indebtedness but will not result in a
reduction of the amount insurance. For this reason, there is
no longer a “last dollar” insurance coverage issue and there
is no longer a need that the insured acquire a “last dollar”
endorsement.
-
The threshold level at which an
insured or insurer can require arbitration has been increased
to $2,000,000.
-
The “Apportionment” provision set
forth in the 1992 Owner’s policy has been deleted. The
deletion of this provision allows the total amount of
insurance set forth in a policy, as opposed to a pro rata
portion of that amount, to be applied toward loss incurred
with respect to a single parcel where the policy covers
multiple parcels not used as single site.
-
The “Liability Noncumulative”
provision set forth in the 1992 Lender’s policy has been
deleted. The effect of this provision had been to allow the
insurer to reduce the amount to be paid on a claim by the
amount already paid by that insurer on a policy insuring a
prior mortgage on the land.
-
The “Co-insurance” provision set
forth in the 1992 Owner’s policy has been deleted. That
provision allowed an insurer to reduce its liability where the
amount of insurance expressed in the policy fell below a
certain percentage of the value of the insured estate. The
provision served to limit insurer liability where, for
example, the value of the property increased due to subsequent
improvement of the property by the insured.
In addition to
the revisions affecting the title policy, existing title
insurance endorsements have been redrafted and several new
endorsements have been adopted. It should be noted that a
complete set of pre-2006 endorsements will continue to be made
available along with the set issued for use with the 2006 policy
form.
Only a portion
of the many changes that were incorporated into the 2006 ALTA
policy has been highlighted in this article. It is suggested,
however, that the 2006 ALTA policy is a product that is
responsive to the concerns and needs of insurers, lenders and
investors and, moreover, reflects careful balancing of
considerations rooted in insurance law, business risk and the
demands of the modern real estate market. The 2006 policy is a
progressive product that addresses market concerns through a
familiar collection of schedules and exhibits containing,
however, terms and provisions that are focused, innovative and
effective.
Walter Weinschenk
LandAmerica Commercial Services
[Print Friendly
Version]
|