I was able to catch most of that hearing, Steve.  The first half included panelists from HUD, the Government Accountability Office, National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners and a couple of others.  The first panel focused mostly on "captive reinsurance" arrangements which, in my opinion, they are right to investigate.  I saw no good answers in favor of the practice.

Although there were some well-thought-out questions asked, it struck me as to how little-informed, in general, most of the participants (house members) were.  I suppose they can't be experts on everything.  Maybe that's why we have so many wacky laws.

Even one of the panelists, Erin Toll, Colorado's Deputy Insurance Commissioner, seemed only to be able to respond with any confidence to questions she had anticipated.  She was asked, at one point, about a casualty-type of title insurance being offered.  This is something I have been looking into lately, as it I have heard rumblings from our local customers that it is being peddled in our state as "lien protection" insurance.  Toll responded that she had heard "whispers in the halls", or something to that effect, as if it were some kind of a rumor that she could not substantiate.

There were questions asked and answered in the first session.  I was more looking forward to the second panel as the ABAs are having a large negative effect on our ability to sell to mortgage brokers.  Half, or so, now say they "own a title company".  Alas, as soon as the second panel started, my phone began to ring and ring.  By the time I was able to get back to the hearing, it was all over.

Thanks for the link, Steve, I had been hoping to find out what was said in that session.  I had previously read the prepared testimony from Rande Yeager, pres. of ALTA, which was offered on ALTA's website.