Just trying to get a feel for what opinions are on referencing a proforma policy on an ALTA Survey. I get the request rarely, and have always avoided it because the ALTA references the title commitment or the preliminary report instead. But I see the issue coming again soon.
Anyone have any input?
In regard to the things one would care about for an ALTA Survey, isn't a pro forma policy equal to or better than a title commitment or prelim? By better I mean that some of the extraneous exceptions to coverage may have been removed. I can't see why all parties to the ALTA wouldn't accept a pro forma in place of the other 2.
Per Chicago Title:
"Documents in the Title Process
- Preliminary Report
- Commitment - Shows the condition of title in the way we are willing to issue it.
- Pro Forma - Specimen of what the requested policy, as requested, will look like. Underwriting issues not completed. Not binding upon the company.
- Policy - Final contract of indemnity between named insureds and the company."
I agree with Baja that the Pro Forma is a little further down the line and better reflection on the final policy. That being said, I have never been brought into a project when they already had a pro forma in hand. I have though, on multiple projects, prepared an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey based on the commitment only to be given the pro forma back with review comments. My problem with that is that the always reference the yet finalized map in the policy said map must reference. I think it is the attorney's attempt to fracture my time-space continuum.
