Diane, after having returned for a look at the clauses in question, I think my understanding that the lender would not have to list providers' names in any case was inaccurate.  I now understand it as the lender's required providers would not need to be listed.  This is because the required provider's name would not be an issue when the borrower is shopping among originators and not third party settlement services.

As to the lender's preferred providers, I would ask how Ivy Jackson reconciles her statements with the following from the proposed rules:  " Where the lender permits a borrower to shop for a required settlement service, under today's proposed rule the lender must provide the borrowers with a written list of identified providers at the time the GFE is provided."  

This would suggest to me that the third party fees would escape the tolerance only if the borrower chose a provider that did not appear on the lender's list of preferred providers. 

HUD appears to dismiss additional title work as a valid 'unforseen circumstance' without really addressing the issue.  HUD discusses a study by Consumers Union comparing title fees in five metropolitan areas in California (no mention of the reasons for price disparity).  HUD goes on to say, "These data indicate that a title insurance company should be able to remain within about 10 percent of its originally quoted price, in the event that a particular loan turns out to involve more extensive title work than originally anticipated."

Hud lists as examples of unforseen circumstances:  "1) Acts of God, war, disaster or other type of emergency that makes it impossible or impracticable for the originator to perform; or 2) circumstances that could not be reasonably forseen at the time of the GFE application, that are particular to the transaction and that result in increased costs, such as a change in the property purchase price, boundary disputes, or environmental problems that were not described to the loan originator in the GFE application; the need for a second appraisal; and flood insurance."

Since HUD contemplates additional title work while justifying the 10% tolerance limit, but does not mention it in its examples of unforseen circumstances, I think it is definitely a cause for question in comments to HUD.  While my reading may be off the mark, the above quotes, taken together, are enough to make me question HUD's intent with regard to inclusion of additional title work with uforseen circumstances allowances.