Texas Department of Insurance and Cassie Brown, in Her Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance v. Texas Land Title Association

ACCEPTED
15-25-00107-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/21/2025 12:09 PM
No. 15-25-00107-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
In the Fifteenth District Court of Appeals, Austin, TexasOF APPEALS
15th COURT
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND CASSIE BROWN, CHRISTOPHER
IN HERClerk
CAPACITY
A. PRINE

AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
Appellants,
V.

TEXAS LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.

On Appeal from the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas
The Honorable Daniella DeSeta Lyttle, Presiding

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND
COMMISSIONER CASSIE BROWN

KEN PAXTON ROSALIND L. HUNT
Attorney General of Texas State Bar No. 24067108
Assistant Attorney Generals
BRENT WEBSTER Administrative Law Division
First Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
RALPH MOLINA
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Deputy First Assistant Attorney
Telephone: (512) 475-4166
General
Facsimile: (512) 320-0167
AUSTIN KINGHORN Rosalind.Hunt@oag.texas.gov
Deputy Attorney General for Civil ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
Litigation TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND
COMMISSIONER CASSIE BROWN
ERNEST C. GARCIA
Chief, Administrative Law
Division

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF i
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Defendants & Appellants: Counsel:

Texas Department of Insurance Rosalind L. Hunt
and Cassie Brown, in her Assistant Attorney General
capacity as Commissioner of the Administrative Law Division
Texas Department of Insurance Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Plaintiff & Appellee: Counsel:

Texas Land Title Association Ray C. Chester
Andrew M. Edge
McGinnis Lochridge LLP
1111 W. 6th Street, Bldg. B, Ste. 400
Austin, Texas 78703

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF ii
GLOSSARY

APA Administrative Procedure Act, Texas
Government Code chapter 2001

App. [letter] Appendix

C.R. [page] Clerk’s Record

Commissioner Commissioner of the Texas Department of
Insurance

OPIC Office of Public Insurance Counsel

TDI Texas Department of Insurance

TLTA Texas Land Title Association

UDJA Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act,
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
chapter 37.

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................ii

Glossary ................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ..................................................................................... iv

Index of Authorities.................................................................................. vi

Statement of the Case .............................................................................. ix

Statement on Oral Argument ................................................................... x

Issues Presented........................................................................................ x

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by exceeding the scope
of review on a temporary injunction when it rendered judgment
on the merits? ................................................................................. x

2. Should the trial court have dismissed TLTA’s claim for
declaratory relief under the UDJA as a redundant remedy when
the APA provides the same relief in either TLTA’s suit for
judicial review or rule challenge? ................................................... x

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

Statement of Facts .................................................................................... 1

I. TDI regulates title insurance in Texas......................................... 1

II. TDI fixes a new title insurance premium rate. ............................ 3

III. TLTA files suit to challenge the new rate. ................................... 5

Standards of Review.................................................................................. 7

Summary of the Argument ....................................................................... 8

Argument ................................................................................................... 9

I. The trial court abused its discretion by exceeding the scope
of review on the application for a temporary injunction

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF iv
when it rendered judgment on the merits. ................................... 9

A. The trial court made a finding on the merits of the
lawsuit, and the finding was not necessary to any element
of injunction relief. ................................................................... 11

B. The trial court granted TLTA’s petition for review of the
commissioner’s order. .............................................................. 13

C. The trial court abused its discretion when ordering a
merits remedy in an interlocutory order. ................................ 14

II. The UDJA declaratory claims are barred as a redundant
remedy and must be dismissed................................................... 16

Conclusion & Prayer ............................................................................... 19

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................ 22

Certificate of Service ............................................................................... 22

Index of Appendices ................................................................................ 23

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

8100 N. Freeway Ltd. v. City of Houston,
329 S.W.3d 858
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) ........................... 10, 11

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.,
84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) ............................................................... 7, 13

Dall. Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley,
104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003) ................................................................. 17

Duhart v. State,
610 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. 1980) ................................................................. 17

Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd.,
No. 03-22-00205-CV, 2023 WL 7134982
(Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 31, 2023, pet. granted)................................. 9, 19

Huynh v. Blanchard,
694 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2024) ................................................................... 8

Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez,
28 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000) ....................................................................... 17

Patel v. Tex. Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation,
469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015) ................................................................... 18

R.R. Comm’n v. Home Transp. Co.,
670 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, no writ) ............................. 19

RWI Constr., Inc. v. Comerica Bank,
583 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) ............................ 7, 8

State v. Sledge,
36 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) .... 17

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) ............................................................. 8, 17

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF vi
Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services v. Balquinta,
429 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d)................. 18, 19

Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones,
8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) ..................................................................... 17

Tex. Emp. Comm’n v. Child, Inc.,
738 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ denied) ........................ 19

Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT–Davy,
74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) ..................................................................... 8

Tom James of Dall., Inc. v. Cobb,
109 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) .............. 8, 10, 11, 13

Wiese v. Heathlake Cmty. Ass’n, Inc.,
384 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) ....... 10

Statutes

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4) .............................................. 7

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8) .............................................. 7

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b) .................................................. 7

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174 ..................................................................... 15

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(1)–(2)........................................................... 15

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.175(c) ................................................................. 16

Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034 ....................................................................... 17

Tex. Ins. Code § 2501.002.......................................................................... 1

Tex. Ins. Code § 2501.003 (12) .................................................................. 1

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.151...................................................................... 2, 3

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.152.......................................................................... 2

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.153(a) ..................................................................... 2

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF vii
Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.201.......................................................................... 2

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202.......................................................................... 2

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(b) ..................................................................... 3

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(g) ................................................................. 3, 5

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(j) ...................................................................... 5

Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.206.......................................................................... 3

Tex. Ins. Code § 37.053(a) ......................................................................... 3

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF viii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: Appellee Texas Land Title Association (TLTA)
filed a suit for judicial review, an application
for a temporary injunction, and other
declaratory relief to challenge a final order of
the Commissioner of the Texas Department of
Insurance (TDI). C.R. 3–37. The order sets a
new rate for basic title insurance, effective July
1, 2025. C.R. 169.

Trial Court: The Honorable Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle,
sitting in the 345th Judicial District Court,
Travis County, Texas. C.R. 170.

Trial Court After a hearing on TDI’s plea to the jurisdiction
Disposition: and TLTA’s application for a temporary
injunction, the trial court issued one order
overruling TDI’s first amended plea to the
jurisdiction (C.R. 171), and a separate order
granting TLTA’s first amended application for
a temporary injunction (C.R. 168–170).

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF ix
STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument is requested because TDI would like an

opportunity to answer any questions not adequately resolved after

reading the briefs.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by exceeding the scope

of review on a temporary injunction when it rendered judgment on the

merits?

2. Should the trial court have dismissed TLTA’s claim for

declaratory relief under the UDJA as a redundant remedy when the APA

provides the same relief in either TLTA’s suit for judicial review or rule

challenge?1

1TLTA’s suit for judicial review is brought under Texas Insurance Code section
36.201, in accordance with the APA’s procedures in Texas Government Code chapter
2001. C.R. 17, ¶44. TLTA’s rule challenge is brought under the APA, Texas
Government Code section 2001.038. C.R. 16.

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF x
INTRODUCTION

The trial court went too far in its order on the temporary injunction

and not far enough in the order on the plea to the jurisdiction. The order

granting the temporary injunction exceeded the scope of review by

making declarations on the merits of TLTA’s petition. See C.R. 168–70;

App. A. The order overruling the plea to the jurisdiction failed to address

whether the court had jurisdiction over TLTA’s redundant UDJA claim.

See C.R. 171; App. B. Through this accelerated appeal, TDI asks the

Court to strike three declarations from the temporary injunction order

and reverse the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction only as to the

redundant UDJA claim.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. TDI regulates title insurance in Texas.

The Texas Department of Insurance regulates the business of title

insurance on real and personal property to protect Texas consumers and

provide adequate and reasonable rates of return for title insurance

companies and agents. Tex. Ins. Code § 2501.002. Title insurance

protects real property owners and lenders from problems with title, such

as a lien, encumbrance, or defect in title. Id. § 2501.003 (12). Title

companies search for problems with the title that need to be corrected

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 1
before buyers purchase the property. If there is a challenge to ownership

later, the title company will defend against lawsuits or cover losses.

The TDI commissioner sets the basic premium rates for title

insurance in Texas. Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.151; C.R. 25. A premium is the

price paid to purchase a title insurance policy. The premium is paid one

time at close on the sale of the property. The basic premium rate is fixed,

but the premium price varies based on the purchase price of the property.

The fixed premium rates apply across the industry. Tex. Ins. Code

§ 2703.151. In other words, all title insurance agents and companies

must charge the same basic premium rate. Id. When fixing title rates,

the commissioner must consider relevant income and expense data from

the industry. Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.152. Each title insurance company

and agent must submit annually to TDI statistical data relating to loss

experience, operational expenses, and other matters. Tex. Ins. Code

§ 2703.153(a). The data submitted in the annual reports is used to fix

premium rates. Id.

Before setting a new premium rate, TDI must provide reasonable

notice and afford a hearing to title insurance companies, title insurance

agents, and the public. Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.201, .202; C.R. 25. At any

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 2
time the commissioner determines necessary or proper, the commissioner

may order a public hearing to consider adoption of premium rates. Tex.

Ins. Code § 2703.206. Alternatively, third parties, like an association of

title insurance agents, such as TLTA, or the Office of Public Insurance

Counsel (OPIC), can request a public hearing to consider changing a

premium rate. Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(b). At the conclusion of the

public hearing and consideration of relevant data, the commissioner

renders a decision and issues a final order. Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(g).

When a new rate takes effect, it applies across the industry, not just to

the parties who requested or participated in the rate change. Tex. Ins.

Code § 2703.151. If an order that sets a rate under the Insurance Code is

appealed, the rate in the order rate remains in effect during the pendency

of the appeal. Tex. Ins. Code § 37.053(a). Title insurers shall use the rate

provided in the order while the appeal is pending. Id.

II. TDI fixes a new title insurance premium rate.

TDI published its 2024 Title Rate Report on its website on

September 16, 2024. C.R. 25, ¶1. The report analyzed statistical data

submitted by title insurance companies and agents in their annual

reports and included multiple rate indications. In November of 2024,

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 3
TLTA and OPIC each requested a public hearing to consider title

insurance basic premium rates. C.R. 26, ¶¶3, 6.

Since the last rate setting in 2019, the title industry has

experienced significant growth and profits. C.R. 31, ¶20; App. C. For

example, industry-wide premiums paid by Texas policyholders went from

$2.27 billion in 2019 to $3.69 billion in 2021. C.R. 31, ¶22. In 2023, the

premiums returned to pre-pandemic levels of $2.38 billion. Id. Since

2019, the title industry’s actual profit ratios have been dramatically

above the target profit ratio used in setting the current basic title

premium rates. C.R. 29, ¶15.

TLTA and OPIC each submitted their own analyses of industry

data, which included their rate indications. TLTA’s indications projected

a rate decrease between 0% and –4.7%. C.R. 29, ¶13. However, TLTA

requested no change in rates or a decrease of –1%. C.R. 25, ¶2. OPIC’s

actuarial analysis indicated a rate decrease between –8.9% and –19.0%.

C.R. 29, ¶13. TDI’s indications projected a rate decrease between –4.9%

and –15.4%. Id. Each of the methods from TLTA, OPIC, and TDI

indicated a reduction in basic premium rates. Id.

After notice and a public hearing on January 23, 2025, the

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 4
commissioner reviewed and evaluated all the information submitted by

TLTA, OPIC, and TDI staff. C.R. 32, ¶6. On February 6, 2025, the

commissioner issued a decision and final order approving a proposed rate

decrease of –10%. C.R. 25–32; see Tex. Ins. Code § 2703.202(g), (j). The

commissioner concluded the reduction would save Texas consumers an

estimated $238 million per year without being confiscatory to title

insurance companies and agents. C.R. 32 ¶6. The final order stated the

new rate would go into effect on July 1, 2025. C.R. 32; App. C.

III. TLTA files suit to challenge the new rate.

On March 6, 2025, TLTA filed a petition for judicial review, an

application for a temporary injunction, and other declaratory relief to

challenge the February 6, 2025, rate order. C.R. 3–37. TLTA brought its

suit for judicial review under Texas Insurance Code section 36.201. C.R.

17, ¶44. TLTA’s request for injunctive relief sought to prevent the new

rate from going into effect on July 1, 2025. C.R. 20–22. TLTA’s request

for declaratory relief was alleged under the APA, Texas Government

Code section 2001.038, and the UDJA, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies

Code chapter 37. C.R. 16. In response, TDI filed an answer, plea to the

jurisdiction, and response to the request for injunctive relief. C.R. 38–

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 5
108.

A two-day hearing was held on the TDI’s plea to the jurisdiction

and TLTA’s application for a temporary injunction on May 27 and 28,

2025. C.R. 168–171. After considering the evidence, administrative

record, and argument of counsel, the trial court issued an order granting

TLTA’s first amended application for a temporary injunction (C.R. 168–

170), and a separate order overruling TDI’s first amended plea to the

jurisdiction (C.R. 171). The order on the temporary injunction found TDI

did not strictly comply with the rulemaking requirements in the Texas

Insurance Code section 2703.202; granted TLTA’s petition for review;

remanded the case back to the agency for further proceedings; enjoined

the commissioner’s rate order from taking effect on July 1, 2025; and set

a trial on the merits for December 1, 2025. C.R. 169. The order overruling

TDI’s plea to the jurisdiction found the court had jurisdiction under Texas

Insurance Code section 36.201 and Texas Government Code section

2001.038(a) but did not address the UDJA claim. C.R. 171.

TDI filed this accelerated appeal of the order granting the

temporary injunction and order overruling the plea to the jurisdiction.

C.R. 174; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4), (8). The appeal

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 6
stayed all proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the appeal.

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b). As a result, the rate order,

with the 10% reduction, would take effect July 1st. TDI and TLTA agreed

that emergency relief to lift the stay, thereby delaying the new rate’s

effect once again, was necessary to prevent rate whiplash for consumers

and the title industry. Upon TLTA’s unopposed emergency motion to lift

the stay on the temporary injunction, the Court ordered the stay of the

temporary injunction lifted until disposition of this appeal or further

order of the court. The statutory stay remains in place for all other trial

court proceedings.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction is within the trial

court’s sound discretion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204

(Tex. 2002). A reviewing court should reverse an order granting

injunctive relief only if the trial court abused that discretion. Id.; RWI

Constr., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 583 S.W.3d 269, 274 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2019, no pet.). In reviewing the trial court’s decision, reviewing courts

draw all legitimate inferences from the evidence in the light most

favorable to the trial court’s judgment. RWI Constr., Inc. v. Comerica

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 7
Bank, 583 S.W.3d 269, 274–75. When the trial court considers conflicting

evidence, there can be no abuse of discretion. Id. However, the trial court

abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law to established facts or

when the evidence does not reasonably support the trial court's

determination of the existence of probable injury or probable right of

recovery. Id.; Huynh v. Blanchard, 694 S.W.3d 648, 674 (Tex. 2024).

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law

reviewed de novo. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d

217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT–Davy,

74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Texas courts have held that legal rights cannot be finally

determined upon a temporary injunction hearing. See Tom James of

Dall., Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).

Yet, that is exactly what the trial court did. In the order granting the

temporary injunction, the court found TDI did not strictly comply with

the rulemaking requirements, granted TLTA’s petition for review, and

remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings. C.R. 168–69;

App. A. All of these declarations were merits determinations, and none

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 8
of them were necessary to satisfy a single element of injunctive relief.

The trial court abused its discretion when it exceeded the scope of review

on the application for a temporary injunction, and the court should strike

these three declarations entirely.

The trial court’s order overruling the plea to the jurisdiction failed

to address jurisdiction as to the UDJA claim. C.R. 171; App. B. TLTA’s

UDJA claim is a redundant remedy because the APA provides the same

relief in either TLTA’s suit for judicial review under the Texas Insurance

Code section 36.201 or rule challenge under Texas Government Code

section 2001.038. See Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd., No. 03-22-00205-CV,

2023 WL 7134982, at *10 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 31, 2023, pet. granted).

The Court should reverse the trial court’s order and dismiss the UDJA

declaratory claim as jurisdictionally barred.

ARGUMENT

I. The trial court abused its discretion by exceeding the scope
of review on the application for a temporary injunction
when it rendered judgment on the merits.

The trial court abused its discretion by granting relief on the merits

at a temporary injunction hearing. The purpose of the temporary

injunction is to preserve the status quo until the case can be tried on its

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 9
merits. Tom James of Dall., Inc., 109 S.W.3d at 882. TLTA sought a

temporary injunction to prevent the new rate order from going into effect

on July 1, 2025. Neither party set a hearing nor a trial on the merits to

address TLTA’s challenges to the Commissioner’s order. At a temporary

injunction hearing, courts are without authority to grant relief beyond

what is requested. See Wiese v. Heathlake Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 384 S.W.3d

395, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (“A party

seeking an injunction must be specific in pleading the type of relief

sought because courts are without authority to grant relief beyond what

is requested.”). The merits of the lawsuit are beyond the trial court’s

scope of review. See 8100 N. Freeway Ltd. v. City of Houston, 329 S.W.3d

858, 864–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“Simply put,

a temporary injunction is not a ruling on the merits.”). By rendering

judgment on the merits, the trial court did not respect the unique

function of the temporary injunction hearing, as described here:

A temporary injunction hearing and a trial on the merits have
different functions:

[O]ur system of procedure is such that legal rights cannot be
finally determined upon a hearing relating to the wisdom or
expediency of issuing a status quo order. Deliberate action is
essential for the accurate determination of legal rights and
upon occasion this can be secured only by issuing a temporary

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 10
decree protecting a status quo. Ordinarily, the hearing upon
the temporary injunction is not a substitute for, nor does it
serve the same purpose as the hearing on the merits.

Id. at 864 (quoting Tom James of Dall., Inc., 109 S.W.3d at 884 (quotation

marks omitted)). The trial court deprived TDI of notice and a hearing

when it made determinations on the merits at a temporary injunction

hearing. The trial court exceeded its authority when it made three

declarations in the order on the temporary injunction. This Court should

reverse and strike each of these three declarations and allow the parties

to fully litigate these issues at trial.

A. The trial court made a finding on the merits of the
lawsuit, and the finding was not necessary to any
element of injunction relief.

The trial court abused its discretion by making a finding that

essentially grants TLTA’s claims under the APA. TLTA alleged in its

amended petition, “Defendants are required to follow specific statutory

and regulatory requirements in a rulemaking proceeding governing title

insurance regulated rates, set forth above. A rule is invalid if not

promulgated pursuant to proper procedure.” C.R. 144–45, ¶40. TLTA

alleged, “[t]he Order was issued in violation of Tex. Ins. Code Chapter

2703, the applicable provisions of the Texas Administrative Procedure

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 11
Act . . . .” C.R. 145, ¶41. TLTA makes the same allegations in its suit for

judicial review: “[t]he Commissioner failed to comply with Texas Ins.

Code § 2703.202, Tex. Gov’t Code Chapter 2001, Subchapter B, especially

§§ 2001.021, 2001.024, 2001.029, and 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.202 by

failing to follow proper procedures for considering TLTA’s rule petition

. . . .” C.R. 145, ¶46.

The trial court’s order on the temporary injunction delivers the final

victory to TLTA on its claims with this finding:

After considering the evidence and arguments of
counsel, the Court FINDS Defendants did not strictly
comply with the rulemaking requirements of Tex.
Insurance Code section 2703.202, subdivision (c), in
connection with the issuance of Commissioner’s February
6, 2025 order number 2025-9125 (Commissioner’s Order
2025-9125).

C.R. 168. Further, the finding that “TDI did not strictly comply with the

rulemaking requirements” was not necessary for any element of

injunctive relief. “An applicant for a temporary injunction must plead

and prove: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right

to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury

in the interim.” Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. “Thus, the legal issues before

the trial court at a temporary injunction hearing are whether the

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 12
applicant showed a probability of success and irreparable injury; the

underlying merits of the controversy are not presented.” Tom James of

Dall., Inc., 109 S.W.3d at 882. This finding violates the foundational

principle that the merits of the controversy are not presented in a

temporary injunction hearing. This finding exceeded the scope of the

temporary injunction hearing and should be reversed and struck from

the order as an abuse of discretion.

B. The trial court granted TLTA’s petition for review of
the commissioner’s order.
Going beyond making a finding on the merits of TLTA’s APA

claims, the trial court also outright grants TLTA’s petition for review:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Petition for Review of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125 is
GRANTED.

C.R. 169. TLTA’s Petition for Review has six points of error. One, TDI

failed to conduct a rule hearing and follow rulemaking procedure. C.R.

145–46, ¶46. Two, TDI misapplied the law and engaged in invalid ad hoc

rulemaking by requiring an unlawful burden of proof. C.R. 146, ¶47–48.

Three, TDI misapplied the law by failing to consider evidence related to

confiscatory rate issue. C.R. 147, ¶49. Four, TDI misapplied the law by

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 13
failing to consider evidence related to all relevant income and expenses.

C.R. 147, ¶50. Five, TDI failed to make findings of fact to support rate

decrease. C.R. 148, ¶51. And six, TDI’s rate table contains a rounding

error that fails to reflect the 10% rate decrease. C.R. 148, ¶52. The

temporary injunction order, on its face, “granted” them all. By doing so,

the trial court rendered judgment on the suit for judicial review in a

temporary injunction order. This declaration likewise exceeded the scope

of the temporary injunction hearing and should be reversed and struck

from the order as an abuse of discretion.

C. The trial court abused its discretion when ordering a
merits remedy in an interlocutory order.
The trial court abused its discretion when it remanded the case to

the agency for further proceedings under Texas Government Code

section 2001.174, rather than ordering additional evidence under section

2001.175(c):

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is
hereby REMANDED to the Texas Department of Insurance
for reconsideration of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125, and
for further proceedings as may be necessary before that
agency, to include but is not limited to additional income
and expenses data used to fix premium rates for the year of
2023 and beyond, which were incomplete or previously
unavailable and as recognized by the Commissioner’s Order
in her Findings of Fact 12(d) and its attendant footnote 2.

C.R. 169. The distinction between a remand and an order for additional

evidence is significant. Under the substantial evidence standard of

review in Texas Government Code section 2001.174, a court “may affirm

the agency decision in whole or in part,” but “shall reverse or remand the

case for further proceedings” if the court finds error in the agency

decision. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(1)–(2) (emphasis added). When a

case is remanded to the agency under section 2001.174, the suit for

judicial review is resolved by a final judgment, and the district court no

longer has jurisdiction. Under section 2001.174, a court cannot remand

the case to the agency while simultaneously retaining jurisdiction over

the case solely to maintain the temporary injunction with a trial setting.

When the court remands the case to the agency, that is a final

determination. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174.

Alternatively, Texas Government Code section 2001.175(c) allows

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 15
the court to issue an interlocutory order for additional evidence, but only

upon application by a party:

A party may apply to the court to present additional evidence.
If the court is satisfied that the additional evidence is material
and that there were good reasons for the failure to present it
in the proceeding before the state agency, the court may order
that the additional evidence be taken before the agency on
conditions determined by the court. The agency may change
its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence
and shall file the additional evidence and any changes, new
findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.175(c). Upon application of a party, the trial court

could have ordered that the additional evidence be taken before the

agency on conditions determined by the court. However, no party in this

case requested additional evidence or made a showing that the evidence

was material. And, the court did not reference section 2001.175(c) in the

order. As written, the court’s order does not invoke 2001.175(c). The trial

court had no authority to remand the case for further proceedings

without a full hearing on the merits. The remand paragraph of the order

must be reversed and struck from the order as an abuse of discretion.

II. The UDJA declaratory claims are barred as a redundant
remedy and must be dismissed.

TLTA’s UDJA claim is a redundant remedy because the APA

provides the same relief in either TLTA’s suit for judicial review under

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 16
the Texas Insurance Code section 36.201 or rule challenge under Texas

Government Code section 2001.038. C.R. 144–48. Sovereign immunity

from suit bars an action against the state unless the state expressly

consents to the suit. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638

(Tex. 1999). The party suing the governmental entity must establish the

state’s consent to suit, which may be alleged either by reference to a

statute or to express legislative permission. Id.; Dall. Area Rapid Transit

v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003); see Kerrville State Hosp. v.

Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2000). It is a well-established rule that

for the Legislature to waive the state’s sovereign immunity, it must do so

by clear and unambiguous language. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034; Duhart

v. State, 610 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. 1980); see Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at

226–27. “A party who sues the State must have an independent waiver

of immunity from suit for each claim in the suit.” State v. Sledge, 36

S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).

The only statutory basis for TLTA’s suit is under Texas Insurance

Code sections 36.201–.205, which provides a limited waiver of sovereign

immunity for judicial review of the commissioner’s order under the APA

procedures; and under Texas Government Code section 2001.038, which

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 17
contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent of creating

a cause of action for declaratory relief regarding the “validity” or

“applicability” of a “rule,” as defined under the APA. However, “the UDJA

does not provide a general waiver of sovereign immunity for claims

within its scope, only a limited waiver encompassing, of chief importance

here, claims against the State or its agencies to challenge the ‘validity’ of

a statute.” Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services v. Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d

726, 746 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. dism’d). “[T]he UDJA does not

alter the scope of a trial court’s jurisdiction, but is merely a procedural

device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction.” Id.

(internal quotations omitted). The UDJA does not provide an

independent basis for the court’s jurisdiction and is barred as a

redundant remedy.

The redundant-remedies doctrine provides that “courts will not

entertain an action brought under the UDJA when the same claim could

be pursued through different channels.” Patel v. Tex. Dep’t of Licensing

& Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69, 79 (Tex. 2015). “Where a statute provides

a method for attack on a [Board] order, an action for declaratory

judgment does not lie.” Tex. Emp. Comm’n v. Child, Inc., 738 S.W.2d 56,

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 18
58 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ denied) (citing R.R. Comm’n v. Home

Transp. Co., 670 S.W.2d 319, 326 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, no writ)). The

concept of redundant remedies “holds essentially that where a claimant

has invoked a statutory means of attacking an agency order, a trial court

lacks jurisdiction over an additional claim under the UDJA that would

merely determine the same issues and provide what is substantively the

same relief that would be provided by the other statutory remedy.”

Balquinta, 429 S.W.3d at 746. Here, judicial review of the

Commissioner’s decision will resolve the same controversy sought to be

resolved by declaratory judgment. See Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd., No. 03-

22-00205-CV, 2023 WL 7134982, at *10 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 31, 2023,

pet. granted) (“These claims all could have been brought under the APA

in a timely filed petition for judicial review of the cease-and-desist order

and are thus redundant.”). Thus, the claim for declaratory relief is merely

incidental to the suit for judicial review. TLTA’s UDJA claim is barred as

a redundant remedy and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Appellants Texas Department of Insurance and Commissioner

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 19
Cassie Brown respectfully ask the Court to:

1. Reverse the trial court’s order granting the temporary

injunction with respect to and by striking from the order the following

declarations:

“After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the
Court FINDS Defendants did not strictly comply with the
rulemaking requirements of Tex. Insurance Code section 2703.202,
subdivision (c), in connection with the issuance of Commissioner’s
February 6, 2025 order number 2025-9125 (Commissioner’s Order
2025-9125).”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for
Review of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125 is GRANTED.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is hereby
REMANDED to the Texas Department of Insurance for
reconsideration of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125, and for
further proceedings as may be necessary before that agency, to
include but is not limited to additional income and expenses data
used to fix premium rates for the year of 2023 and beyond, which
were incomplete or previously unavailable and as recognized by the
Commissioner’s Order in her Findings of Fact 12(d) and its
attendant footnote 2.”

2. Reverse the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction only as to the

redundant UDJA claim, thereby dismissing the claim from TLTA’s

lawsuit.

3. Remand the case back to the trial court for a full hearing on

the merits.

4. Appellants request such other and further relief to which they

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 20
show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Litigation

ERNEST C. GARCIA
Chief, Administrative Law Division

/s/Rosalind L. Hunt
ROSALIND L. HUNT
State Bar No. 24067108
Assistant Attorney Generals
Administrative Law Division
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 475-4166
Facsimile: (512) 320-0167
Rosalind.Hunt@oag.texas.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND
COMMISSIONER CASSIE BROWN

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the submitted brief complies with Rule 9 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure and the word count of this document is
4,046. The word processing software used to prepare this filing and
calculate the word count of the document is Microsoft Word for Office 365.

Date: August 21, 2025.

/s/Rosalind L. Hunt
Rosalind L. Hunt
Attorney for Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 21, 2025, a true and correct copy of
the above and forgoing document has been served to the following
attorneys of record via electronic service and/or electronic mail:

RAY C. CHESTER
State Bar No. 04189065
ANDREW M. EDGE
State Bar No. 24071446
MCGINNIS LOCHRIDGE LLP
1111 W. 6th Street, Bldg. B, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78703
Telephone: (512) 495-6000
Facsimile: (512) 495-6093
rchester@mcginnislaw.com
aedge@mcginnislaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

/s/Rosalind L. Hunt
Rosalind L. Hunt
Attorney for Appellants

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 22
INDEX OF APPENDICES

Order Granting Plaintiff’s First Amended Application for Temporary
Injunction (C.R. 168–70) .......................................................................... A

Order Overruling Texas Department of Insurance and Cassie Brown’s
First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction (C.R. 171) ................................. B

Official Order of the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, No. 2025-9125
(C.R. 25–36) .............................................................................................. C

TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 23
APPENDIX A
05/30/2025 04:28:34 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-25-001663
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-001663

TEXAS LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AND CASSIE BROWN, IN HER §
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE §
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, §
§
Defendants.
§ 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

On May 27-28, 2025, the Court heard Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for

Temporary Injunction filed on March 6, 2025, and as amended on May 28, 2025, solely to include

a verification as provided in Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition and Application for

Temporary Injunction.

The Court FINDS that Defendants waived the insufficiency of verification to support

Plaintiff’s original application for injunctive relief, by Defendants’ failure to timely object thereto

before the Court heard evidence pertaining to the requested injunctive relief. Russell v. City of

Dallas, No. 05-13-00061-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5339, at * 9–10 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014,

pet. denied, cert. denied 574 U.S. 1048 (2014)).

After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the Court FINDS Defendants did

not strictly comply with the rulemaking requirements of Texas Insurance Code section 2703.202,

subdivision (c), in connection with the issuance of Commissioner’s February 6, 2025 order number

2025-9125 (Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION Page 1 of 3
FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001663

Page 168
The Court FURTHER FINDS that Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125 dictates a new set of

basic premium rates as set forth in the “Exhibit A” attached to that order, which will take effect on

July 1, 2025, and its application to Plaintiff interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with

or impair, a legal right or privilege of the plaintiff.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Review of Commissioner’s

Order 2025-9125 is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Texas

Department of Insurance for reconsideration of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125, and for further

proceedings as may be necessary before that agency, to include but is not limited to additional

income and expenses data used to fix premium rates for the year of 2023 and beyond, which were

incomplete or previously unavailable and as recognized by the Commissioner’s Order in her

Findings of Fact 12(d) and its attendant footnote 2.

The Court FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff is without adequate remedies at law, absent a

temporary injunction of Commissioner’s Order 2025-9125 at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Application for Temporary

Injunction is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Commissioner’s

Order 2025-9125, and that order is hereby STAYED, pending final disposition of this matter. This

injunction is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees,

and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive

actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause is hereby set for trial on the merits to

commence on December 1, 2025, and as the Court may further order.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION Page 2 of 3
FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001663

Page 169
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order not be effective unless and until Plaintiff

executes and files with the Clerk a bond, in conformity with the law, payable to Defendants in the

amount of $2,500.

SIGNED on May 30, 2025,

_____________________________
DANIELLA DESETA LYTTLE
Judge Presiding, 261st District Court

07/02/2025 08:27:08

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION Page 3 of 3
FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001663

Page 170
APPENDIX B
05/30/2025 04:27:51 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-25-001663
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-001663

TEXAS LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AND CASSIE BROWN, IN HER §
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE §
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, §
§
Defendants.
§ 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER OVERRULING TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND CASSIE
BROWN’S FIRST AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

On May 27-28, 2025, the Court heard Texas Department of Insurance and Cassie Brown’s

First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction filed on May 20, 2025 (Plea).

After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the Court FINDS that it has

subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Insurance Code section 36.201 and Texas Government

Code section 2001.038, subdivision (a), to conduct judicial review of the Commissioner’s actions

as alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Injunction filed on March

6, 2025, and as amended on May 28, 2025. The Court therefore FINDS that Defendants’ sovereign

immunity has been statutorily waived.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plea is OVERRULED.

SIGNED on May 30, 2025,

_____________________________
07/02/2025 08:27:08 DANIELLA DESETA LYTTLE
Judge Presiding, 261st District Court

Page 171
APPENDIX C
No. 2025-9125

Official Order
of the
Texas Commissioner of Insurance

Date: 02/06/2025

Subject Considered:

Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing
Docket No. 2851
Petition Nos. P-1124-02 and P-1124-03

General Remarks and Official Action Taken:

The subjects of this order are the two requests to consider title insurance basic premium
rates under Insurance Code § 2703.202 filed by the Texas Land Title Association (TLTA) and
the Office of Public Insurance Counsel (OPIC). The commissioner sets the title insurance basic
premium rates by order following a public hearing. After consideration of each matter
presented in writing and orally at a public hearing, the commissioner fixes a new title
insurance premium rate.

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted.

Findings of Fact

1. On September 16, 2024, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) published its
2024 Title Rate Report on its website. The report provides rate indications based
on title experience data ending in calendar year 2022 ranging from î4.9% to
î15.4%.

2. On November 1, 2024, TDI received TLTA's request to consider the title insurance
basic premium rates. TLTA proposed that there be no change in the rates.
Alternatively, if rates are decreased, TLTA proposed that the decrease should not
be more than î1.0% and effective on July 1, 2025. In a supplemental submission
provided to TDI on January 14, 2025, TLTA concluded that a rate decrease in the

Page 25
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 2 of 8

range of 0.0% to î4.7% is reasonable, but in light of data it collected on a sampling
of 37 title agents' 2023 experience, suggested that a 0.0% change is most
appropriate.

3. TDI assigned TLTA's request for a public hearing Petition No. P-1124-02.

4. TDI issued a notice of public hearing on TLTA's request. The notice was posted on
TDI's website on November 8, 2024, and published in the November 22, 2024, issue
of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 9608).

5. On November 12, 2024, TDI received OPIC's request to consider the title insurance
basic premium rates. OPIC requested that TDI hold the hearing requested by TLTA,
but disagreed with TLTA that the basic premium rates should not be changed. In a
supplemental submission provided to TDI on January 22, 2025, OPIC concluded
that a rate decrease in the range of î8.9% to î19.0% is indicated based on
historical experience and is actuarially sound.

6. TDI assigned OPIC's request for a public hearing Petition No. P-1124-03.

7. Because of a forecasted snowstorm for Austin and much of the state, the
commissioner postponed the hearing that was initially scheduled for January 21,
2025, until January 23, 2025, under Government Code § 551.0411.

8. On January 23, 2025, the commissioner conducted a public hearing under
Insurance Code § 2703.202(c), under Docket No. 2851. Interested people attended
the hearing and had the opportunity to present written and oral testimony. TLTA,
OPIC, and TDI staff presented exhibits, analyses, and rate calculations summarizing
and referencing the reports that each had previously submitted to the
commissioner.

9. Under Insurance Code § 2703.152, when fixing a premium rate, the commissioner
must "consider all relevant income and expenses of title insurance companies and
title insurance agents attributable to engaging in the business of title insurance."
The premium rates must be "reasonable as to the public" and "nonconfiscatory as
to title insurance companies and title insurance agents." Insurance Code
§ 2703.152.

Page 26
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 3 of 8

Income and Expenses of Title Insurance Companies and Agents

10. The reports from TLTA, OPIC, and TDI each included a description of the actuarial
methods they used to determine whether a change to the basic premium rates is
indicated.

11. All three reports included rate indications determined using the loss ratio method.
The loss ratio method takes into account the title industry's expense ratio, the loss
and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratio, the catastrophe loss provision, and the
profit provision. 1

a. To determine the expense ratio, the reports compiled data on expenses
related to the business of title insurance and divided that by the amount of
premium collected. The expense ratio provides for all reasonable costs
associated with a title insurance policy other than profits and losses.

b. To determine the loss and loss adjustment expense ratio, the reports
compiled data on losses and loss adjustment expenses and divided that by
the amount of premium collected.

c. The catastrophe loss provision is selected to account for the possibility of
the market experiencing widespread losses that are significantly higher than
what has been experienced historically.

d. To determine the profit provision, the reports first determined a target cost
of capital. Returns from investments are subtracted from the target cost of
capital and then adjusted for the industry's premium-to-capital leverage
ratio.

e. To determine the expense ratio, the loss and loss adjustment expense ratio,
and the catastrophe loss provision, TLTA, OPIC, and TDI used data submitted
to TDI under Insurance Code § 2703.153.

1
The formula for the rate indication using the loss ratio method is:
[(L+E+C)/(1-P)] - 1
Where L = loss and loss adjustment expense ratio = losses and LAE/premium; E = expense ratio =
expenses/premium; C = catastrophe loss provision; and P = underwriting profit provision =
profit/premium.

Page 27
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 4 of 8

12. The reports from TLTA, OPIC, and TDI each contained multiple rate indications
using the loss ratio method. The various rate indications make up the reports'
ranges. The main difference in the indications are from the profit provisions and
experience periods used.

a. For the profit provision, TLTA used 12.0%, OPIC used 7.0%, and TDI used
11.0%. These differences are mainly from the values used for the target cost
of capital and the size premium adjustments. OPIC asserts that Texas title
insurance is less risky and less variable than the average line of property and
casualty insurance, so a lower cost of capital is reasonable, and no size
premium adjustment is needed.

b. OPIC and TDI provided indications that used 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and
20-year experience periods; each ending in 2022. In general, a shorter
period tends to be responsive to recent market conditions in the experience
period, whereas a longer period tends to capture a broad spectrum of
economic conditions.

c. TLTA's indications used a 3-year period ending in 2019, a 5-year period
ending in 2019, and a 20-year period ending in 2022. TLTA stated its
experience periods avoid giving too much weight to the pandemic periods
of 2020–2022, which were outlier years.

d. TLTA also provided an indication using a standalone estimate of the 2023
expense ratio because it asserted that the available data through 2022 does
not include the full impact from the downturn in the title insurance market
that started in the fall of 2022. Because TDI has not received all 2023 data
under Insurance Code § 2703.153, 2 TLTA surveyed 37 agents that it said
make up about 50% of total Texas premiums and used that data to estimate
the expense ratio for 2023.

e. TLTA also provided an indication using linear regression. It created a scatter
plot of the expense ratio and retained premium data between 1998 and
2022 and then determined a line of best fit to estimate the expense ratio on
the basis of on-level retained premiums.

2
While the deadline to submit the data has passed as of the date of this order, TDI is working with agents
and agencies that missed the deadline or that need to provide data corrections.

Page 28
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 5 of 8

f. TDI and OPIC used the same experience periods, resulting in them using the
same expense ratios, averaging 77.0%. TLTA's expense ratios were mostly
higher, averaging 81.7%; this was attributable to the different experience
periods and methods TLTA used.

g. The loss and loss adjustment expense ratios used by all parties were similar,
2.3% for TLTA and 2.0% for OPIC and TDI, since this ratio shows little
volatility over the various experience periods.

h. For the catastrophe loss provision, all parties used 1.0%.

13. The various actuarial methods yielded the following results:

Loss Ratio Methods TLTA OPIC TDI
5-year ending 2022 î19.0% î15.4%
10-year ending 2022 î15.6% î11.8%
15-year ending 2022 î12.5% î8.6%
20-year ending 2022 î3.8% î8.9% î4.9%
5-year ending 2019 î4.6%
3-year ending 2019 î4.7%
Linear regression î4.0%
2023 estimate 0.0%
Overall range 0.0% to î4.7% -8.9% to î19.0% î4.9% to î15.4%

14. The commissioner has reviewed and evaluated all the information submitted in the
TLTA, OPIC, and TDI reports. This information reflects the relevant income and
expenses experienced by all title insurance companies and title insurance agents
engaged in the business of title insurance in Texas.

Reasonable as to the Public

15. In recent history, the title industry's actual profit ratio has been consistently, and at
times dramatically, above the target profit ratio used in setting the basic premium
rates. The actual profit ratios earned by title agents and underwriters in Texas over
different periods are as follows:

Page 29
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 6 of 8

Years of Data Included Average Profit Ratio
2003–2022 (20 years) 17.5%
2008–2022 (15 years) 19.8%
2013–2022 (10 years) 24.6%
2018–2022 (5 years) 26.2%
2015–2019 (5 years) 22.2%
2022 (1 year) 26.6%

16. While the housing market saw a downturn in late 2022, due in part to increases in
mortgage rates and median home prices, the average rate of return was 26.6%.
When you compare this with the profit provisions used in TLTA's (12.0%), OPIC's
(7.0%), and TDI's (11.0%) actuarial analyses, it shows that even as the market
declines, there is a sizeable difference between what is considered an acceptable
target for profit levels and the actual profits the market has been experiencing.

17. Sustaining the current levels of profits in the current real estate market with the
current levels of inflation would not be reasonable as to the public. Texans are
being affected by housing affordability across the state. A reduction in title
insurance basic premium rates would likely help bring the actual profit ratio closer
to the target.

Nonconfiscatory as to Title Insurance Companies and Agents

18. A confiscatory rate is one that is too low to allow a regulated company to "not only
recover its operating expenses, but also to realize reasonable returns on its
investments." 3

19. The commissioner did not receive "clear and convincing evidence" 4 that a
reduction in rates would lead the average title insurance company or title insurance
agent to experience insolvency or earn an unreasonable rate of return.

3
Geeslin v. State Farm Lloyds, 255 S.W.3d 786, 795 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008), citing Duquesne Light Co. v.
Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 307, 109 S.Ct. 609, 102 L.ED.2d 646 (1989); Railroad Comm'n v. Houston Natural Gas
Corp., 155 Tex. 502, 289 S.W.2d 559, 572 (1956).
4
Id. at 795.

Page 30
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 7 of 8

20. Between 2020 and 2022, the title industry in Texas experienced significant growth.
The COVID pandemic and a dramatic reduction in interest rates led to an
unprecedented increase in housing purchases and refinances.

21. To accommodate that increase, agencies have expanded, and more agents have
entered the market. Since 2019, the number of licensed title agents in Texas has
grown by 29%—from 614 agents in 2019 to 794 agents in 2024.

22. Industry-wide premiums went from $2.27 billion in 2019, to $2.69 billion in 2020,
and $3.69 billion in 2021. In 2022, there was a slight decline to $3.38 billion, and
2023 saw a return to pre-pandemic premium levels at $2.38 billion. While the
market has declined, the industry is still collecting significant premium.

23. While the rates must be nonconfiscatory for the industry, that does not mean that
every licensed agent and agency should expect the same level of profitability. The
average profit must be reasonable, but, as OPIC noted in its report, that is likely to
result in some agents making large profits while others do not. Irrespective of the
basic premium rate, the downturn in the market may result in underperforming
agents seeing a lack of profitability.

24. Aside from TLTA's method that included its sampling of 2023 data, each of the
methods from TLTA, OPIC, and TDI indicated a reduction in rates from –4.7% to
î19.0%. Those methods used profit provisions of 12.0%, 7.0%, and 11.0%,
respectively; and each entity's report asserts that its respective profit provision
would be a reasonable rate of return.

Conclusions of Law

1. The commissioner has jurisdiction over this matter under Insurance Code
§§ 31.021, 2501.001–2501.008, 2551.003, and 2703.001–2703.208.

2. TDI gave proper and timely notice of the January 21, 2025, public hearing required
by Insurance Code § 2703.203 and of its continuation to January 23, 2025, under
Government Code § 551.0411.

3. Insurance Code § 2501.002 states that the purpose of the Texas Title Insurance Act
is "to completely regulate the business of title insurance . . . to protect consumers
and purchasers of title insurance policies and provide adequate and reasonable
rates of return for title insurance companies and title insurance agents."

Page 31
2025-9125
Commissioner’s Order
2025 Title Insurance Basic Premium Rates Hearing - Docket No. 2851
Page 8 of 8

4. Insurance Code § 2703.151 requires the commissioner to fix and promulgate the
premium rates to be charged by title insurance companies and title insurance
agents.

5. Insurance Code § 2703.152 states that when fixing premium rates, the
commissioner must "consider all relevant income and expenses of title insurance
companies and title insurance agents attributable to engaging in the business of
title insurance." The premium rates must be "reasonable as to the public and
nonconfiscatory as to title insurance companies and title insurance agents."

6. After considering the data collected under Insurance Code § 2703.153 and the
reports provided by TLTA, OPIC, and TDI staff, the commissioner has determined
that a 10% reduction in the title insurance basic premium rates takes all relevant
income and expenses into account, is reasonable to the public, and is
nonconfiscatory to title insurance companies and agents. This reduction will save
Texas consumers an estimated $238 million per year.

Order

It is ordered that, effective July 1, 2025, title insurance companies and title insurance
agents must use the basic premium rates reflected in Exhibit A.

_______________________________
Cassie Brown
Commissioner of Insurance

Recommended and reviewed by:

_________________________________
Mark Worman, Deputy Commissioner

__________________________________
Jessica Barta, General Counsel

Page 32
2025-9125

Exhibit A

Page 33
2025-9125

TEXAS TITLE INSURANCE BASIC PREMIUM RATES
‡ÍťôŜϙ(ƯôèťĖŽôϙVŪīƅϙ͐Ϡϙ͑͏͔͑
„ĺīĖèƅϙ>Íèôϙ „ĺīĖèƅϙ>Íèôϙ „ĺīĖèƅϙ>Íèôϙ „ĺīĖèƅϙ>Íèôϙ
ıĺŪIJťϙ˜ŕϙťĺϙÍIJîϙ ÍŜĖèϙ ıĺŪIJťϙ˜ŕϙťĺϙÍIJîϙ ÍŜĖèϙ ıĺŪIJťϙ˜ŕϙťĺϙÍIJîϙ ÍŜĖèϙ ıĺŪIJťϙ˜ŕϙťĺϙÍIJîϙ ÍŜĖèϙ
IIJèīŪîĖIJČ „ŘôıĖŪı IIJèīŪîĖIJČ „ŘôıĖŪı IIJèīŪîĖIJČ „ŘôıĖŪı IIJèīŪîĖIJČ „ŘôıĖŪı
щ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ щ͔͑͘ϙ щ͓͓Ϡ͏͏͏ щ͓͐͏ϙ щ͕͒Ϡ͏͏͏ щ͔͔͑ϙ щ͗͑Ϡ͏͏͏ щ͕͓͏ϙ
͔͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͑͗͘ϙ ͓͓Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͐͒ϙ ͕͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͑͗ϙ ͗͑Ϡ͔͏͏ 644
͕͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͏͑ϙ ͓͔Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͖͐ϙ ͕͓Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͒͑ϙ ͗͒Ϡ͏͏͏ 648
͕͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͒͏͓ϙ ͓͔Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͐͘ϙ ͕͓Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͔͒ϙ ͗͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͔͏ϙ
͖͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͏͕ϙ ͓͕Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͑͑ϙ ͕͔Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͖͒ϙ ͓͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͔͒ϙ
͖͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͒͏͘ϙ ͓͕Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͕͑ϙ ͕͔Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͓͏ϙ ͓͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͔͕ϙ
͑͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͐͑ϙ ͓͖Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͑͗ϙ ͕͕Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͓͓ϙ ͔͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͔͘ϙ
͑͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͒͐ϙ ͓͖Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͒͏ϙ ͕͕Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͓͗ϙ ͔͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͕͑ϙ
͑͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͑͏ϙ ͓͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͔͒ϙ ͕͖Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͔͐ϙ ͕͗Ϡ͏͏͏ 664
͑͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͒͑͑ϙ ͓͗Ϡ͔͏͏ 438 ͕͖Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͔͑ϙ ͕͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͕͘ϙ
͒͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͒͑ϙ ͓͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͓͐ϙ ͕͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͔͔ϙ ͖͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͖͑ϙ
͒͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͒͑͗ϙ ͓͘Ϡ͔͏͏ 444 ͕͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͔͘ϙ ͖͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͖͓ϙ
͒͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͒͐ϙ ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏ 446 ͕͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͕͑ϙ ͗͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͖͖ϙ
͒͐Ϡ͔͏͏ 334 ͔͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͓͘ϙ ͕͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͕͓ϙ ͗͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͗͏ϙ
͒͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͒͒ϙ ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͔͐ϙ ͖͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͕͗ϙ ͗͘Ϡ͏͏͏ 684
͒͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͒͏ϙ ͔͐Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͔͔ϙ ͖͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͖͑ϙ ͗͘Ϡ͔͏͏ 686
͒͒Ϡ͏͏͏ 343 ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͔͘ϙ ͖͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͖͔ϙ ͘͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͗͘ϙ
͒͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͖͒ϙ ͔͑Ϡ͔͏͏ 463 ͖͐Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͖͖ϙ ͘͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͑͘ϙ
͓͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͒͘ϙ ͔͒Ϡ͏͏͏ 464 ͖͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͗͏ϙ ͐͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͕͘ϙ
͓͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͒͒ϙ ͔͒Ϡ͔͏͏ 468 ͖͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͗͒ϙ ͐͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͘͘ϙ
͔͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͕͒ϙ ͔͓Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͖͐ϙ ͖͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͕͗ϙ ͑͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͏͐ϙ
͔͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͒͗ϙ ͔͓Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͖͒ϙ ͖͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͗͘ϙ ͑͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͏͔ϙ
͕͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͒͐ϙ ͔͔Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͓͖͕ϙ ͖͓Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͑͘ϙ ͒͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͏͖ϙ
͕͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͔͒ϙ ͔͔Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͖͘ϙ ͖͓Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͕͘ϙ ͒͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͐͐ϙ
͖͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͖͒ϙ ͔͕Ϡ͏͏͏ 483 ͖͔Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͘͘ϙ ͓͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͐͑ϙ
͖͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͒͐ϙ ͔͕Ϡ͔͏͏ 486 ͖͔Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͏͐ϙ ͓͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͕͐ϙ
͒͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͓͒ϙ ͔͖Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͗͘ϙ ͖͕Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͏͓ϙ ͔͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͑͐ϙ
͒͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͖͒ϙ ͔͖Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͑͘ϙ ͖͕Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͏͖ϙ ͔͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͓͑ϙ
͒͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͒͘ϙ ͔͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͕͘ϙ ͖͖Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͐͏ϙ ͕͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͔͑ϙ
͒͘Ϡ͔͏͏ 383 ͔͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͗͘ϙ ͖͖Ϡ͔͏͏ϙ ͕͐͒ϙ ͕͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͑͗ϙ
͓͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͒͗ϙ ͔͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͏͏ϙ ͖͗Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͖͐ϙ ͖͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͒͑ϙ
͓͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͒͘͏ϙ ͔͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͏͓ϙ ͖͗Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͑͏ϙ ͖͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͔͒ϙ
͓͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͑͘ϙ ͕͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͏͗ϙ ͖͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͓͑ϙ ͗͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͒͗ϙ
͓͐Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͒͘ϙ ͕͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͐͐ϙ ͖͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͔͑ϙ ͗͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͓͑ϙ
͓͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͒͗͘ϙ ͕͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͓͐ϙ ͗͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͑͗ϙ ͘͘Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͓͓ϙ
͓͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͏͐ϙ ͕͐Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͕͐ϙ ͗͏Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͒͑ϙ ͘͘Ϡ͔͏͏ ͖͓͖ϙ
͓͒Ϡ͏͏͏ ͓͏͒ϙ ͕͑Ϡ͏͏͏ ͔͐͘ϙ ͗͐Ϡ͏͏͏ ͕͔͒ϙ ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ ͖͓͘ϙ
͓͒Ϡ͔͏͏ ͓͏͖ϙ ͕͑Ϡ͔͏͏ ͔͑͒ϙ ͗͐Ϡ͔͏͏ ͕͖͒ϙ

Page 34
2025-9125

“ĖťīôϙÍŜĖèϙ„ŘôıĖŪıϙÍīèŪīÍťĖĺIJϙċĺŘϙ„ĺīĖèĖôŜϙĖIJ
(ƄèôŜŜϙĺċϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏

˜ŜĖIJČϙťēôϙťÍæīôϙæôīĺſϠϙÍŕŕīƅϙťēôŜôϙŜťôŕŜϙťĺϙîôťôŘıĖIJôϙæÍŜĖèϙŕŘôıĖŪıϙċĺŘϙŕĺīĖèĖôŜϙÍæĺŽôϙ
щ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϡ

‹ťôŕϙ͐ϙ IIJϙèĺīŪıIJϙϼ͐ϽϠϙƱIJîϙťēôϙŘÍIJČôϙťēÍťϙĖIJèīŪîôŜϙťēôϙŕĺīĖèƅЍŜϙċÍèôϙŽÍīŪôϟ
‹ťôŕϙ͑ϙ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙťēôϙŽÍīŪôϙĖIJϙèĺīŪıIJϙϼ͑ϽϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙŕĺīĖèƅЍŜϙċÍèôϙŽÍīŪôϟ
‹ťôŕϙ͒ϙ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙťēôϙŘôŜŪīťϙĖIJϙ‹ťôŕϙ͑ϙæƅϙťēôϙŽÍīŪôϙĖIJϙèĺīŪıIJϙϼ͒ϽϠϙÍIJîϙŘĺŪIJîϙťĺϙťēôϙ
IJôÍŘôŜťϙîĺīīÍŘϟ
‹ťôŕϙ͓ϙ îîϙťēôϙŽÍīŪôϙĖIJϙèĺīŪıIJϙϼ͓ϽϙťĺϙťēôϙŘôŜŪīťϙĺċϙťēôϙŽÍīŪôϙċŘĺıϙ‹ťôŕϙ͒ϟ

ϼ‹ôôϙôƄÍıŕīôŜϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙťēôϙťÍæīôϟϽ

“ĖťīôϙÍŜĖèϙ„ŘôıĖŪıϙÍīèŪīÍťĖĺIJϙċĺŘϙ„ĺīĖèĖôŜϙĖIJϙ(ƄèôŜŜϙĺċϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ

ϼ͐Ͻ ϼ͑Ͻ ϼ͒Ͻ ϼ͓Ͻ
„ĺīĖèƅϙ‡ÍIJČôϙ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅ îî
Ѐщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ- щ͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͓͖͓ϙ щ͖͓͘
Ѐщ͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ-щ͔Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͒͘͏ щ͔Ϡ͏͐͗
Ѐщ͔Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ- щ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͔Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͒͑͐ щ͑͏Ϡ͕͏͕
Ѐщ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ- щ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͑͑͘ϙ щ͔͑Ϡ͖͕͒
Ѐщ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ- щ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͖͐͒ щ͖͔Ϡ͔͕͘
Ѐщ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͐ϙ- щ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͓͐͑ щ͐͏͘Ϡ͖͕͘
Ѐ@ŘôÍťôŘϙťēÍIJϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ёϙ ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙ ͏ϟ͏͏͐͐͑ щ͖͐͐Ϡ͕͗͘

(ƄÍıŕīôŜϙċĺŘϙ„ĺīĖèĖôŜϙĖIJϙ(ƄèôŜŜϙĺċϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͐ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻϙ„ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͕͑͗Ϡ͔͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻϙ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͕͑͗Ϡ͔͏͏ϙ-щ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͕͐͗Ϡ͔͏͏
ϼ͒ϽϙaŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͓͖͓ѱѱѳϙщ͕͐͗Ϡ͔͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͓͖͓ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͖͘͘
ϼ͓Ͻϙîîϙщ͖͓͘ϙѱѱѳϙщ͖͘͘ϙѭϙщ͖͓͘ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͐Ϡ͔͓͗

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͑ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻϙ„ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͓Ϡ͕͗͑Ϡ͕͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻϙ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͓Ϡ͕͗͑Ϡ͕͏͏ϙ-щ͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͒Ϡ͕͗͑Ϡ͕͏͏
ϼ͒ϽϙaŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͒͘͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͒Ϡ͕͗͑Ϡ͕͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͒͘͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͓͐Ϡ͓͑͘
ϼ͓Ͻϙîîϙщ͔Ϡ͏͐͗ϙѱѱѳϙщ͓͐Ϡ͓͑͘ϙѭϙщ͔Ϡ͏͐͗ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͐͘Ϡ͓͑͘

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͒ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻϙ„ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͐͏Ϡ͘͏͑Ϡ͗͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻϙ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͔Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͐͏Ϡ͘͏͑Ϡ͗͏͏ϙ-щ͔Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔Ϡ͘͏͑Ϡ͗͏͏
ϼ͒ϽϙaŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͒͑͐ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔Ϡ͘͏͑Ϡ͗͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͒͑͐ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͐͗Ϡ͓͗͘
ϼ͓Ͻϙîîϙщ͑͏Ϡ͕͏͕ϙѱѱѳϙщ͐͗Ϡ͓͗͘ϙѭϙщ͑͏Ϡ͕͏͕ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͒͘Ϡ͔͔͓

Page 35
2025-9125

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͓ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻ „ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͖͐Ϡ͔͑͘Ϡ͐͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͖͐Ϡ͔͑͘Ϡ͐͏͏ϙ-щ͔͐Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͑Ϡ͔͑͘Ϡ͐͏͏
ϼ͒Ͻ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͑͑͘ѱѱѳϙщ͑Ϡ͔͑͘Ϡ͐͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͑͑͘ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔Ϡ͔͕͑
ϼ͓Ͻ îîϙщ͔͑Ϡ͖͕͒ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔Ϡ͔͕͑ϙѭϙщ͔͑Ϡ͖͕͒ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔͖Ϡ͑͘͘

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͔ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻ „ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͒͘Ϡ͔͒͐Ϡ͗͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͒͘Ϡ͔͒͐Ϡ͗͏͏ϙ- щ͔͑Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏ϙ͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͓͐Ϡ͔͒͐Ϡ͗͏͏
ϼ͒Ͻ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͖͐͒ϙѱѱѳϙщ͓͐Ϡ͔͒͐Ϡ͗͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͖͐͒ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͐͘Ϡ͕͕͑
ϼ͓Ͻ îîϙщ͖͔Ϡ͔͕͘ϙѱѱѳϙщ͐͘Ϡ͕͕͑ϙѭϙщ͖͔Ϡ͔͕͘ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔͘Ϡ͔͑͗

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͕ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻ „ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͖͔Ϡ͒͏͏Ϡ͑͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͖͔Ϡ͒͏͏Ϡ͑͏͏ϙ-щ͔͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔͑Ϡ͒͏͏Ϡ͑͏͏
ϼ͒Ͻ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͓͐͑ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔͑Ϡ͒͏͏Ϡ͑͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͓͐͑ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͒͐Ϡ͖͒͑
ϼ͓Ͻ îîϙщ͐͏͘Ϡ͖͕͘ϙѱѱѳϙщ͒͐Ϡ͖͒͑ϙѭϙщ͐͏͘Ϡ͖͕͘ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͓͐͐Ϡ͕͐͗

(ƄÍıŕīôϙ͖ϡ
ϼ͐Ͻ „ĺīĖèƅϙĖŜϙщ͔͐͐Ϡ͔͑͏Ϡ͒͏͏
ϼ͑Ͻ ‹ŪæťŘÍèťϙщ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔͐͐Ϡ͔͑͏Ϡ͒͏͏ϙ- щ͐͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏Ϡ͏͏͏ϙѱѱѳϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙщ͔͐Ϡ͔͑͏Ϡ͒͏͏
ϼ͒Ͻ aŪīťĖŕīƅϙæƅϙ͏ϟ͏͏͐͐͑ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔͐Ϡ͔͑͏Ϡ͒͏͏ϙƄϙ͏ϟ͏͏͐͐͑ѱѱѳ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͔͖Ϡ͓͏͏
ϼ͓Ͻ îîϙщ͖͐͐Ϡ͕͗͘ϙѱѱѳϙщ͔͖Ϡ͓͏͏ϙѭϙщ͖͐͐Ϡ͕͗͘ϙѱѱѳϙ>ĖIJÍīϙ‡ôŜŪīťϙѱϙщ͑͑͘Ϡ͕͑͘

Page 36
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Jennifer Foster on behalf of Rosalind Hunt
Bar No. 24067108
jennifer.foster@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 104673679
Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: TDI Appellants Brief w Appendix
Status as of 8/21/2025 12:35 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Texas Land Title Association

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Kim McBride kmcbride@mcginnislaw.com 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

Ray Chester rchester@mcginnislaw.com 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

Drew Edge aedge@mcginnislaw.com 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Texas Department of Insurance

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Rosalind Hunt rosalind.hunt@oag.texas.gov 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

Jennifer Foster Jennifer.Foster@oag.texas.gov 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

Meridith Fischer Meridith.Fischer@oag.texas.gov 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT

John Grey John.Grey@oag.texas.gov 8/21/2025 12:09:39 PM SENT