Hey Patrick,

I completely agree with everything you have said.  I even agree that some type of uniformity would be nice.  I just think it is sad that it is necessary.  The underwriters "relaxing" their standards is the real problem.  I agree that the potential losses are by far made up for in the volume and I'm sure this has led to better profits for them.  However, insuring over title defects does not provide the same benefits to the consumer as fixing them.  Even though there is insurance to cover any losses, it is still an inconvenience, at the least, to make the consumer jump through hoops to fix a problem that should have been cleared at closing.

In some instances, blanket exceptions are issued as a part of the policy; such as "...any easements or restrictions of record."  In my opinion, this is providing a huge disservice to the consumer who mistakenly believes that his policy is evidence that he has good title.

In the case of lenders that are not getting title insurance and are willing to accept certain risks, it is probably a good business decision.  However, I don't think that should change the title search requirements. The search should still show ALL MATTERS AFFECTING TITLE within the time frame of the search - and then, after being duly informed of the risks, they can choose to disregard anything they deem appropriate.

I know that the industry has changed and my thinking is "old school," but it is not a good path for us to head down.  Eventually, it will turn into a casualty based insurance where no title search is required and the consumer will suffer. 
Good points, and I thank you for posting the thread.  It is an interesting topic for discussion.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE