Are there any statistics that support the need for Title Insurance?
There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa The point of title insurance is that when you buy a house, it is possible that you may eventually find out that the seller didn't actually own the property - either because they were trying to deceive you, or some transfer of ownership in the past wasn't carried out properly. If that happens you can find yourself with no house, and still owing the mortgager the purchase price. Hardly anybody can afford to take that kind of hit, which is why you need some form of protection against it. The traditional way of doing this was to get a lawyer to do a title search, in which they check that everything in order. However this costs tens of dollars at least to do the work for every sale, and hardly ever finds anything. Title Insurance is a company volunteering to take the hit for you if there turns out to be a problem, in return for a payment of less than the title search would cost. In essence they are saying that it's cheaper to take the risk than do the work. What are the statistics? This report seems to indicate that payout is around 5% of premium, but title insurance is a one-off premium and the payout can theoretically happen many years down the line. However it is almost certain that the insurance companies have done the math and believe that selling this insurance will be profitable for them, so they believe that payouts are going to be substantially less than 100%. Is title insurance worth it for you? If the payout is 5% of premiums, the in a purely statistical sense it is not worth it. You would on average gain more by not taking it. However that is true of almost all insurance. The policy is there to protect you in the unlikely but not impossible event where you would otherwise lose a huge amount of money. Unless you can afford to lose the value of your house, you need some form of protection. We've already seen that the only other form of protection is a title search, and they cost more. The other issue is that if you are taking a mortgage, your mortgager will absolutely insist that you have either a title search or title insurance. There is no other way - and title insurance is the cheaper of the two. In this case it is best to look on the title insurance as simply a cost of doing business. It's irrelevant whether it's worth it or not - you can't do the transaction without it. "I'm really surprised at the answers here. Claims/year per region isn't a statistic that is meaningful here... you need to think about the risk factors and the purpose of the insurance. First, what does title insurance do? It protects you against defects in the deed -- defects that may crop up and mean that your mortgage is no longer valid. This is different from most forms of insurance -- the events that render your title invalid are events that may have happened years, decades or even centuries ago. A big part of the insurance policy and its cost is conducting research to assess the validity of a deed. The whole point of the insurance is to reduce claims by improving data associated with the ""chain of custody"" of the property. So how do you evaluate the risk of finding out about something that happened a long time ago, that nobody appears to know about? IMO, you have to think about risk factors that increase the probability that things were screwed up in the past: You need to have an informed discussion with your attorney and figure out if it makes sense for you. Don't dismiss it out of hand." When I bought the house I had my lawyer educate me about everything on the forms that seemed at all unclear, since this was my first time thru the process. On of the pieces of advice that he gave was that title insurance had almost no value in this state unless you had reason to believe the title might be defective but wanted to buy the property anyway. In fact I did get it anyway, as an impulse purchase -- but I'm fully aware that it was a bad bet. Especially since I had the savings to be able to self-insure, which is always the better answer if you can afford to risk the worst case scenario. Also: Ask the seller whether they bought title insurance. Often, it is transferrable at least once.
On most of the consumer electronics it would not make much sense to get Insurance. Mostly these are not priced right [are typically priced higher]. IE there is no study to arrive at equivalent claim rates as in motor vehicle. Further on most of the items there is adequate manufacturing warranty to take care of initial defects. And on most it would make sense to buy a newer model as in todays world consumer electronics are not only getting cheaper by the day, but are also have more function & features. Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while  to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law. "Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, ""ugh"") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC." "The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, ""how likely am I to need it?"", and ""what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?"". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being ""what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim""), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the ""normal"" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign ""ownership contracts"", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two ""buckets"" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what ""normal"" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of ""lose a little every month"" or ""lose it all at once""." "The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default.  Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (""meh, we'll do that next summer"") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it.  That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired.  If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them.  After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out." Note: This is what one of the people responsible for this process told me quite a few years ago, it might be different today. I work in insurance, but I don't follow this particular process too closely.   New cars necessitate a judgment call, which usually involves a look at claims rates for similar (existing) cars, manufacturer-specific labour and parts costs, expected regional distribution (for example, a new BMW will probably sell better in Bavaria than in other areas, which has higher labour rates than most of the rest of the country, and will be categorised accordingly), and other factors, depending on the situation.   These preliminary judgments are largely discarded when the new statistics are compiled, though, which is once a year. New insurance groups are published in early September and usually applied to insurance contracts on January 1st. Insurance - get estimate from an insurance agent who works with policies for commercial real estate.  See comments below regarding incorporation. Taxes - if this was basic income for a simple LLC, estimating 25-40% and adjusting over time might work.  Rental property is a whole different prospect.  Financial experts who specialize in rental properties would be a good source of advice, and worth the cost.  See below regarding incorporating. Real estate appreciation - not something you can count on for developed property.  Appreciation used to be almost guaranteed to at least keep up with inflation.  Now property values are not even guaranteed to go up.  Never have been but the general rule was improved real estate in good repair appreciated in price.  Even if property values increase over time, rental properties depreciate.  In fact, for rental properties, you can claim a certain rate of depreciation over time as an expense on taxes.  This depreciation could mean selling for less than you paid for the property after a number of years, and owing capital gains taxes, since you would owe the difference between the depreciated value and the sale price. Related to taxes are local codes.  Some areas require you to have a property management license to handle buildings with more than a certain number of units. If you are going to own rental properties, you should protect your private financial life by incorporating.  Form a company.  The company will own the property and hire any maintenance people or property managers or security staff or any similar employment activities.  The company takes out the insurance and pays taxes.  The company can pay you a salary.  So, bottom line, you can have the company pay all the expenses and take all the risks.  Then, assuming there's any money left after expenses, the company can pay you a manager's salary.  That way if the worst happens and a tenant breaks their hip in the shower and sues you for ONE MILLION DOLLARS and wins, the company folds and you walk away.  You might even consider two companies.  One to own the property and lease it to a property management company.  The property management company can then go bankrupt in case of some sort of liability issue, in which case you still keep the property, form a new management company, repaint and rename the property and move on. TL;DR:  Get insurance advice from insurance agent before you buy.  Same for taxes from an accountant.  Get trained as a property manager if your local codes require it (might be a good idea anyway).  Incorporate and have the company take all the risks. "Hi I'm the writer thanks for the read and the comment. With the statement you quoted, I'm trying to dispute the claim that ""people these days can't afford a house because they would have to pay their entire salary just to afford the mortgage,"" which I think is quite common in some circles. The data makes no statement as to whether home ownership is more affordable or not, but simply shows that those buying property are using around the same percentage of their income to pay for it, which the data clearly shows to be true.   https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N  As it turns out, home ownership levels have remained within ~5% of their 1980 levels based on percentage of the total population. I think there is an major classification flaw when comparing only sales because a great deal of people inherit property with no sale ever being made." The bank doesn't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to provide the proof of insurance. It is the agent's job, which you through your HOA dues paid for, to provide that proof to you. You shouldn't be registering with icerts. They say so in the first sentence on the registration page: Unit Owners, Do Not Register Here! If you own an existing property,   and have received a letter from your lender requiring an annual   renewal/updated certificate for an association that has recently   expired, please forward that letter to info@iCerts.com to receive   instructions to place your order. If your request is a new loan of any   kind, please contact your lender and request that they either contact   us to place this order, or register below. So you can try that route (sending an email to info@icerts.com), and see if it works. It does cost money, in the range of $20-$100 (I used a different similar service at the time and they charged $75 for this). If it doesn't, you can try and work with the insurance agent. There are some ways to persuade them: California has very strong traditions of consumer protections. In this case, I suggest checking out this site. Let the insurance agent know that as the HOA member - they're working for you, and that in the next HOA meeting you will raise a request to change the insurance agency. Also, remind the agent that the CA Insurance Commission will knock on their doors to ask why they don't provide you with the proof you need. If the HOA management company doesn't help you, you can remind them that they too can be fired. This can be done, and isn't even all that hard. There's a lot of competition in the HOA management market, and it wouldn't be too hard to find a new management company. The HOA management company should have provided you the proof of coverage when they renewed the policy. When we got our mortgage in the state of Washington, in the United States, we had to get title insurance before our lender would loan the money. This ensures that the person selling us the house actually owns the title, clean and clear. If there are any surprises, the insurance covers us (or the lender, really). Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment. According to Money Girl, home insurance premiums are higher if you have a poor credit score. You might self-insure though if you are wealthy. You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take.  Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that. If all you look at is the people that can afford houses, then you're just primarily looking at banking policies -- who they will make a loan to, and on what loan terms; which are fairly consistent over time.  FRED's home ownership statistic is calculated as the number of households that are owned; it makes no distinction between a household with a college grad still living with their parents because they can't afford living on their own.  Apartment leases aren't getting cheap either. Why do people take out life insurance on their children? They do so largely because it's being sold to them.  The insurance companies generally push them on the basis that if you have to pay for a funeral and burial, the cost would devastate a family's finances.  In some rare instances that might actually be true, but not generally. Should I take out a policy on my child? Generally no.  When they sell you a policy they have to dance around a catch-22 - if you have enough money to afford the 'cheap' life insurance, then you have enough money to pay for a funeral and burial that's probably not going to happen.  If you don't have enough money to pay those expenses in the rare case that a child does die, then you really can't afford the insurance, even if it's only 'pennies a day for peace of mind.' And why would schools send these home to parents, year-after-year?  The schools are paid a commission.  It is not much more than a fundraiser for them, just like school pictures. Am I missing something? Yes, in fact, you could be making money hand over fist if you were willing to prey on parental insecurities.  Just set up a stand outside the hospital and get parents who are just about to deliver to sign up for your amazing insurance plan in case the tragic occurs.