Florida Title Insurance Case Law And Constutional Challenges
BARRY I HECHTMAN et al Petitioners vs NATIONS TITLE INSURANCE OF NEW YORK et al Respondents
We have for review a decision on the following question certified by the Third District Court of Appeal to be of great public importance:
WHETHER § 627.792, FLA. STAT. (1997), WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN INSURER IS LIABLE FOR THE MISFEASANCE OF A “LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT” APPLIES TO A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT WHO IS AN ATTORNEY AND IS THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM LICENSING AS A TITLE INSURANCE AGENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE UNDER § 626.8417, FLA. STAT. (1997).
For the reasons set forth above, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the Third District’s decision. It is so ordered.
State of Florida, Dept. of Ins. v. Keys Title and Abstract Co., Inc., 741 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Adverse summary judgment finding title insurance data call statute unconstitutional - reversed on appeal.
the court held that ” . . . the legislature had a rational basis to limit the application of section 627.782(8) to non-lawyer title insurance agents.” The court went on to say, “The issue is not whether the statute distinguishes one class of persons from another. Here . . . the statute plainly does make such a distinction. The question the court must answer is whether the distinction is one that is proper, given the purpose of the statute.”
The court stated: “In the present case, there can be no doubt that the statute serves a legitimate purpose. It enables the Department of Insurance to make informed decisions regarding the premium rates for title insurance.”
PER CURIAM. We have for review a trial court order declaring several anti-rebate statutes regarding the premiums to be negotiated between title insurance agents and consumers to be unconstitutional. The district court certified the issue as one involving a question of great public importance, requiring immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. For reasons expressed below, we affirm the trial court’s order declaring the statutes unconstitutional. In its opinion, the court stated:
“While we acknowledge the Legislature’s interest in protecting title insurers and agents against insolvency, such purpose is not furthered by the anti-rebate statutes presented herein. As noted throughout this opinion, the Legislature has taken great strides in protecting the industry’s solvency and the soundness of the insurance policies through means other than the anti-rebate statutes. One such means is the statutory mandate that title insurers receive thirty percent of the risk premium to ensure continued solvency.”
“The anti-rebate statutes, on the other hand, do not achieve the Legislature’s avowed purposes and instead simply deprive the consuming public of a choice in the price of products or services, the choice of which is the cornerstone of a competitive, free market economy.”
Florida Southern Abstract & Title Company v. Bjellos, 346 So. 2d (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The title company, acting as the closing agent, failed to give the buyer at the closing a termite inspection report. The contract contained a statement that it was “subject to negative termite inspection paid by seller.” The court found that the title agent, by failing to furnish such a report to the buyer, “breached a legal duty to the appellees (purchasers) in failing to carry out its responsibility as a closing agent.”