The title insurance industry: infusing innovation and competition

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Hemphill
1974 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry D. Todd ◽  
Richard W. McEnally

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-420
Author(s):  
Matt Koronczok

Blockchain has recently driven a financial revolution in the realm of virtual currencies, smart contracts, and escrow services. Over the last year, the technology has also been mentioned as a harbinger of change in real estate transactions and land title research. Speculation about the technology’s likely impact in various industries is more warranted in some instances than others. Goldman Sachs, for its part, has suggested that, like other industries which have benefitted from the transparency and efficiency of blockchain technology, the title insurance industry will experience a dramatic boost in the near future. This suggestion, however, fails to recognize both the efficiency already achieved by industry title plants and the extent of legal problems that arise during title research—very few of which blockchain holds promise of mitigating. Public land titling offices, on the other hand, stand to gain significantly by adopting the technology. Because of blockchain’s decentralized and unalterable structure, the technology is useful for protecting records from natural disasters and government corruption. This Comment charts the real property legal issues that blockchain likely will and will not address. Developers and investors will find that understanding what blockchain can and cannot do for the real estate industry is crucial, because blockchain hype looms large and, as Bitcoin’s recently fluctuating prices prove, the way forward for blockchain investment can be uncertain.


1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-5

Abstract Controversy attends use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in defining injured workers’ permanent partial disability benefits: States desire an efficient, nonsubjective way to determine benefits for nonscheduled injuries and are using the AMA Guides to define the extent of disability. Organized labor is concerned that use of the AMA Guides, particularly with modifications, does not yield a fair analysis of an injured worker's disability. From its first issue, The Guides Newsletter emphatically emphasized and clearly stated that impairment percentages derived according to AMA Guides criteria should not be used to make direct financial awards or direct estimates of disability. The insurance industry and organized labor differ about the use of the AMA Guides in defining permanent partial disability (PPD). Insurers support use of the AMA Guides because they seek a uniform system that minimizes subjectivity in determining benefits. Organized labor is particularly concerned about the lack of fairness of directly equating impairment and disability, and if the rating plays a role in defining disability, additional issues also must be considered. More states are likely to use the AMA Guides with incorporation of additional features such as an index to PPD.


2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (24) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document