I want to express my opinion on this issue.  While I agree that some form of standardization of the products would be nice - it should not be necessary.  There should not be so many products in the mix.  The purpose of title insurance is to insure marketable title (among other things) and that can only be done with a search conducted according to the local title standards. 

The decay of the underwriting standards for title insurance have led to a plethora of "off-the-wall" requests for hybrid-searches that are substantially less than should be required to insure marketable title.

When the end product is not title insurance, the standards should still be the same though I realize that a shorter search may suffice.  For instance, a current owner may satisfy the needs of the clients, but all the potential defects that effect title should still be shown during that shorter time span.

A search request that specifies "do not check for civil cases, judgments, leases, easements, etc." should not exist.  These items all have a serious impact on the status of title and they should never be ignored.  There are too many people in the business who do not understand title that are providing title related services.

The entire industry needs to understand the use of these products and how these hybrid searches are affecting those who rely on the services we provide.  Most of the consumers of title insurance rely on their policy as a means of ensuring that they have marketable title.  They need to understand that over the past decade there has been a growing gap between "insurable title" and "marketable title." 

I, personally, would prefer to see the underwriters adopt the stricter underwriting standards that are more in line with the marketable title that they are insuring.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE