Did the 1965 Washington escrow-registration exemption for title insurance companies also cover ordinary title companies?

Plain-English summary

The Washington Attorney General concluded in 1965 that the escrow-registration exemption for title insurance companies did not also exempt title companies that performed escrow work. The statute named the former class, and the AG read that exception strictly. (Official opinion)

The opinion distinguished the two kinds of businesses: title insurance companies could directly issue title insurance under the cited regulatory law, while a title company could sell another insurer’s policy but did not itself take on the insurer’s financial responsibility.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Were title companies exempt just because title insurers were exempt?
No. The AG treated title companies as a separate, unlisted class under the 1965 escrow act.

What made the two kinds of company different in the opinion?
Only a title insurance company could directly issue title insurance; a title company could sell policies under an agreement with an insurer.

Could both kinds of company perform escrow work?
Yes. The opinion noted that both frequently acted as escrow agents, but that did not extend the registration exception.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked whether the escrow act’s listed exemption for title insurance companies covered title companies. The AG applied the express statutory list and the rule that exceptions to protective regulation are construed strictly.

Citations and references

• The official opinion states: “exempts title insurance companies that engage in the escrow business from the provisions of the act but does not similarly exempt title companies.”
• The official opinion states: “title companies are not included in the exception”

Subject

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE ‑- DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES ‑- ESCROW AGENT REGISTRATION ACT ‑- EXEMPTION OF TITLE INSURANCE COMPANIES DOES NOT INCLUDE TITLE COMPANIES

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/offices-and-officers-state-director-motor-vehicles-escrow-agent-registration-act-0

Original opinion text

Attorney General John J. O'Connell

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE ‑- DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES ‑- ESCROW AGENT REGISTRATION ACT ‑- EXEMPTION OF TITLE INSURANCE COMPANIES DOES NOT INCLUDE TITLE COMPANIES.

Section 2, chapter 153, Laws of 1965, of the escrow agent registration act, exempts title insurance companies that engage in the escrow business from the provisions of the act but does not similarly exempt title companies.

December 14, 1965

Honorable W. A. Gissberg
State Senator, 39th District
Route 1, Box 41
Lake Stevens, Washington

Cite as: AGO 65-66 No. 57

Dear Sir:

By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we have paraphrased as follows:

Does § 2 of chapter 153, Laws of 1965 (the escrow agent registration act) which grants a blanket exemption to title insurance companies that engage in the escrow business, thereby grant the same exemption to title companies that engage in the escrow business?

We answer your question in the negative.

ANALYSIS

During its last regular session, the legislature enacted chapter 153, Laws of 1965, which provides for the registration and regulation of escrow companies and agents. The law provides in part that it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the escrow business unless he has registered with the director of motor vehicles. A number of persons, however, are exempted from the act's provisions. Among those exempted are title insurance companies. Section 2 provides in part that:

". . . the registration requirements of this act shall not apply to:

[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]

"(1) Any person doing business under the law of this state . . . relating to . . . title insurance companies, . . ."

It is an accepted principle of statutory construction that when a statute expressly refers to a person or persons, it is the intent of the legislature to exclude all other persons, i.e., expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This principle, however, operates conversely where there is an exception to the statute. In such cases, the expressed exclusion of one person or persons, means that the legislature intended to include all others, i.e., expressio unius est inclusio alterius. See, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 49.15 (1943), and State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Department of Public Service, 1 Wn.2d 102, 112, 95 P.2d 1007 (1939).

Applying the above statutory construction rules to the present case, we must conclude that the legislature, when it expressly excluded title insurance companies and other persons, meant to include those persons which it did not mention such as title companies.

An examination of the nature of the escrow agents registration act reinforces this conclusion. The act is designed to impose certain regulations on persons engaged in the escrow business so as to protect the public. The filing of character affidavits, of a fidelity bond, and in some cases of an assumed name certificate, illustrate this purpose.

It is a general rule of statutory construction that statutes regulating activities in order to protect the public are construed broadly; and conversely that exceptions to such statutes are construed strictly. See, Crawford, Statutory Construction, § 299 (1940); also, In re Monks Club, Inc., 64 Wn.2d 845, 849, 394 P.2d 804 (1964), and cases cited therein.

This principle is designed to give the public the greatest possible protection.

In the present case, the legislature specifically listed certain classes that it wanted to exempt, including title insurance companies. The classes which the legislature exempted from the regulation of the escrow agent registration act are already under some form of regulation. In the case of title insurance companies, that regulation is [[Orig. Op. Page 3]] contained in chapter 48.29 RCW. Title companies are not under any regulation, and are in fact, excluded from the coverage of the act regulating title insurance companies. See RCW 48.29.010.1/ If we therefore apply the above‑cited principle of construing statutory exceptions strictly so as to give the public the greatest possible protection, we must conclude that title companies are not included in the exception, and cannot be given an exemption from the escrow agent registration act.

We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

JOHN R. MILLER
Assistant Attorney General

*** FOOTNOTES ***

1/Both title companies and title insurance companies prepare, issue and certify the correctness of abstracts of title to property. Similarly, both title companies and title insurance companies frequently act as escrow agents. The two kinds of companies differ, however, in that only title insurance companies (which have fulfilled the financial responsibility criteria of the title insurance act [RCW 48.29]) [[chapter 48.29 RCW]], can directly issue title insurance. While title companies frequently sell title insurance policies to their customers, this is only done under an agreement with a title insurance company, whereby the latter assumes full financial responsibility.