SENATE BILL 926 (DOLWIG – 1970)
CHAPTER 1075, STATUTES OF 1970, SB 926
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-800-666-1917 or email@example.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available.
As enacted, Senate Bill 926 affected Insurance Code sections 1215 and 12415, 12416, 12418, and 12419, relating to insurance. (See Exhibit #1d) Senator Richard J. Dolwig introduced Senate Bill 926 on April 1, 1970 at the request of the Department of Insurance and the title insurance industry. (See Exhibits #1a and #7, document PE‑1)
Senate Bill 926 was assigned to the Senate Committee on Finance and Insurance and the Assembly Committee on Finance and Insurance where policy issues raised by the bill were considered. (See Exhibits #3 and #6) The fiscal ramifications of the bill were considered by the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. (See Exhibit #2) Two amendments were made to Senate Bill 926. (See Exhibits #1b, #1c and #2) Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Ronald Reagan signed Senate Bill 926 on September 14, 1970, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on that date as Chapter 1075 of the Statutes of 1970. (See Exhibits #1d and #2)
Summarizing the provisions of Senate Bill 926, an Enrolled Bill Memorandum to the Governor states:
SB 926 exempts an underwritten title company and an organization organized for the purpose of doing underwritten title business, whether licensed or not, from the definition of “insurer” for purposes of the Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act.
The bill also establishes specified annual renewal fees for specified certificated title insurers and underwritten title companies.
(See Exhibit #7, document PE-1)
Rationale for Senate Bill 926 is set forth in the Assembly Committee on Finance and Insurance analysis, which states:
The proponents for the bill feel that paying a flat annual fee is better than paying an estimated fee because the latter method can and has resulted in paying an excess amount into the Insurance Fund. This would not occur under SB 926 because there would be a set amount that would have to be paid.
(See Exhibit #6)