A measure intended to ease regulations on the title insurance industry by spelling out which marketing expenses would be permitted by agents gained momentum in the New York Legislature this week after moving out of two key committees in both chambers.

The bill was introduced this year in response to regulations promulgated by the state Department of Financial Services nearly two years ago that limited what the title insurance industry could bill as a marketing expense and what they could not.

The bill was approved by the Senate Insurance Committee earlier this week and the Assembly Codes Committee on Thursday. It has to clear one more committee in the Senate before a final vote, but could come to the floor of the Assembly at any time after this week.

It's the second version of the legislation to be considered by lawmakers. The first bill, introduced more than a year ago, failed to pass the Assembly but was unanimously approved in the Senate.

This year's iteration is sponsored by state Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Albany, who said he's spoken with the Assembly and intends for the legislation to be approved this year.

“It's my hope that it will,” Breslin said.

Breslin, an attorney, said his experience in real estate law informed his decision to become involved in the issue. He's the chair of the Senate Insurance Committee and currently of counsel at Barclay Damon in Albany.

“In my other life years ago, I did a lot of real estate law,” Breslin said. “And title companies were providing a product to insure a property, but they were also providing an enormous amount of ancillary services, often uncompensated.”

Title insurance companies and agents might take closing costs to the bank, for example, or go retrieve an old deed. Agents can go unpaid for those services, which makes marketing their business an important part of their operations, industry representatives have said.

The regulations on the industry's marketing expenses were promulgated by DFS after an investigation by the agency in 2015 found title insurance companies and agents spend millions each year marketing to attorneys and real estate agents.

Those expenses, which could include meals, entertainment and other fees, were in turn billed to consumers in premiums as marketing costs. The agency argued that the practice violated part of the state's insurance law that prohibits the exchange of a rebate, fee or any “other consideration or valuable thing” as an inducement for business.

One insurer, for example, was found to have spent millions of dollars each year for their clients, who were mainly attorneys, on expensive tickets to basketball games at Madison Square Garden and other sporting events. That translated to up to 14% of the premium ultimately charged to their customers, the agency said.

The regulations promulgated after the investigation placed strict limits on what would be considered an acceptable marketing expense for title insurance and agents. They could pay for advertising in local media, for example, but they couldn't take an attorney or real estate agent out to lunch.

The latter example has historically been a common way for title insurance agents to market themselves, representatives from the industry have said. They would get coffee or grab a meal with a prospective client to discuss business and pick up the tab.

The New York State Land Title Association, a trade group representing the industry, went as far as suing the state over the new regulations last year, arguing that certain marketing expenses were necessary for their business and, therefore, should be billable to a customer.

The regulations were struck down by a trial court judge in Manhattan, but that decision was unanimously reversed by a state appellate court in January.

Lawmakers first tried to introduce legislation that would nullify the regulations last year. The bill would have changed the definition of an inducement for business in the insurance law for the title insurance agency. It passed the Senate unanimously but stalled in the Assembly.

The new bill from Breslin would take a different route by spelling out, specifically, what title insurance companies and agents could bill as marketing expenses. The legislation lists four specific categories, three of which are already allowed under the regulations from DFS.

The fourth category in the bill seeks to reverse the regulation from DFS that essentially barred title insurance agents and companies from paying for meals with prospective or current clients, according to the bill text.

The legislation would allow title insurance companies and agents to spend money on “meal and beverages with present or prospective customers where one or more employees or representatives of the title insurance corporation or title insurance agent are present and title insurance business.”

That doesn't mean title insurance agents or companies would be allowed to pay for a meal in exchange for someone's business. That would still be inducement. Other permitted marketing expenses would include general advertising, continuing legal education courses and charitable contributions.

Industry representatives have suggested that, if the bill passes, DFS may be able to set spending caps or release guidance on how to follow the new law. The agency may choose to make clear, for example, that title insurance agents or companies could pay for a meal, but not a lavish one at an expensive restaurant.

Bob Treuber, executive director of the Land Title Association, said the bill would be a positive change for the industry.

“Under the state's current insurance law, title insurance providers—who work to protect New Yorkers' property rights and advance homeownership—are unable to have even a cup of coffee with a client or potential client to market their services,” Treuber said. “This bill makes a modest, but needed change to allow title insurance providers to engage in normal business practices like other professionals.”

The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, in the lower chamber. Cahill did not immediately return a request for comment on the measure's chances in the Assembly.

A spokesman for DFS did not immediately offer comment on the legislation.

READ MORE:

Appeals Court Reinstates New Regs on Title Insurance Industry

Maria Vullo Confirms She's Leaving DFS in February

Supreme Court Annuls Agency Overreach in Title Insurance Regulations