Insurers File Article 78 Proceeding Against DFS Over New Title Regs
Several title insurance companies are asking the state Supreme Court to strike down newly enacted regulations from the New York Department of Financial Services, arguing that the new rules will result in companies shuttering and layoffs.
February 20, 2018 at 07:30 PM
5 minute read
ALBANY — Several title insurance companies are asking the state Supreme Court to strike down newly enacted regulations from the New York Department of Financial Services, arguing that the new rules will result in companies shuttering and layoffs.
The New York State Land Title Association Inc., which represents the industry, along with the Great American Title Agency Inc. and Venture Title Agency filed an Article 78 petition with the Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon, claiming that the new regulations by the state's banking and insurance regulator “wreak havoc on title insurance corporations, title insurance agents, and title closers across the state of New York.”
The DFS regulations “will result in company closures, layoffs and reduced services for consumers, hitting small businesses hardest. DFS must be stopped before more companies are forced to close or lay off employees and consumers are harmed across the state,” the title insurance companies said in court documents filed Tuesday.
The title insurance companies are being represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Mylan Denerstein, who previously served as Gov. Andrew Cuomo's chief counsel, as well as associates Akiva Shapiro and David Coon. Reached for comment Tuesday evening, the NYSLTA referred questions to the court documents.
A spokesman for DFS said Tuesday night that “DFS stands by its title insurance regulations and looks forward to responding in court.”
In October, the DFS issued final regulations aimed at stopping “unscrupulous practices” in the title insurance industry. The regulations clarify the rules around marketing expenses, including meals, entertainment and other fees that title agents or title insurers may charge a customer at closing. The regulations were born from a 2015 investigation by the department, which found that insurance companies, real estate agents and others who order title insurance on behalf of clients spent millions on incentives to attorneys and real estate agents that were charged to consumers as marketing costs. The incentives, according to the DFS, are a violation of the state's anti-inducement provision of the state's insurance law.
The title insurance companies are asking the state Supreme Court to strike down the regulation, arguing that it is “inconsistent” with state insurance law, which only prohibits quid pro quo inducements for businesses, not ordinary marketing activities that “are critical for the success of the industry,” court documents said.
The lawyers for the title insurance companies also argue that a portion of the new regulations imposes a rate reduction as a retroactive penalty for conduct that had been previously permitted and that it “imposes unconstitutionally vague restrictions on political and charitable contributions and advertising activities—in violation of due process—by barring spending that is 'lavish or excessive' and not 'reasonable and customary,' which are ambiguous standards that are not defined.”
The title insurance regulations represent “improper regulatory overreach and is arbitrary and capricious,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the court should declare Insurance Regulation 2018 void and unenforceable.
Since the DFS finalized the regulations in October, it has been fraught with concerns. In mid-December, just days before the regulations were to go into effect, three state lawmakers asked the department for a six-month delay, saying they had “serious concerns” over the insurance regulations.
In a letter to DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo, Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, who chairs the insurance committee, said the regulations on how insurers and agents will be able to market themselves, the requirement for insurers to restate the last six years of their expenses and certify their compliance with the new regulations or implement a 5 percent rate reduction for all title insurance policies “will significantly destabilize an industry that has stability, reliability and predictability at its very core.”
Five days after the lawmakers sent the letter to Vullo urging the regulator to slow down the implementation of the regulations, the department announced that it would begin enforcing a certain section of the regulation that deals with prohibition on inducements for future title insurance business and permitted expenses on Feb. 1, 2018, rather than the scheduled date of Dec. 18, 2017.
Despite the delay in implementation, the Republican-led state Senate passed legislation in mid-January that would undo the title insurance regulations. The legislation, sponsored by Republican state Sen. James Seward, the head of the Senate insurance committee, was also approved unanimously during last year's legislative session. The proposal to undo the regulations has a companion bill in the Democratic-dominated Assembly, but the chamber has yet to take it up for a floor vote.
In an affidavit in support of the Article 78 filing, the former New York insurance superintendent, Gregory Serio, argued that the regulation goes “far beyond DFS' statutory authority by prohibiting marketing expenses that are not otherwise a quid pro quo prohibited by Insurance Law Section 6409(d).”
Serio, a partner and managing director of lobbying and government firm Park Strategies who leads the firm's risk and insurance management practice group, was hired by NYSLTA to review the DFS regulations.
“The regulation fails to provide regulated parties with specific guidance and certainty as to what is prohibited, and impermissibly provides regulators with discretion to subjectively enforce its provisions,” Serio said in his affidavit.
This article has been updated with comment from the Department of Financial Services.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250