Something has shifted in how title companies evaluate automation vendors. A question that rarely came up a few years ago is now standard in enterprise conversations, and it is starting to appear in mid-size shops too. The question is simple: if we stop working with you, what happens to the automation we built together?
The answer depends entirely on how the contract was structured from the start. And according to Jimmy Lewis, CEO & Co-Founder of TrueFocus Automation, more companies are learning to ask the question before they sign rather than after.
Two Stakeholders, One Question
When ownership comes up in a sales conversation, Lewis says it is almost always being driven by one of two groups: senior leadership or IT.
For leadership, the concern is financial. “They don’t want to get into a contract where they’re paying a transactional amount for an extended period of time,” Lewis explains. Leasing automation on a per-transaction basis creates an ongoing cost that grows with volume. Owning the code turns that cost into a one-time build expense plus maintenance, and it creates an asset that sits on the company’s balance sheet. For any title company that may be considering a future exit or acquisition, that distinction matters.
IT departments raise the same question from a different direction. Their concern is operational control. They want to see the logs. They want to know which systems the bot is accessing and why. They want the ability to host the automation in their own environment, review what it is doing, and modify or maintain it without being dependent on a vendor.
“They prefer to host it and thus own the code and manage it,” Lewis says. “Or they hire us to maintain or manage it.”
The SaaS Model Looks Affordable Until It Does Not
The transactional pricing model is a common entry point for title companies exploring automation for the first time. It keeps risk low, does not require a large upfront commitment, and lets a company test the workflow before deciding how to proceed. For lower-volume operations, it may remain the right structure indefinitely.
But for companies handling consistent monthly volume, the math changes over time. A process that costs $0.50 per transaction at 3,000 transactions a month adds up to $18,000 a year. A custom bot built and owned outright runs an average of $9,500, with annual maintenance of $8,000 to $10,000. At that volume, ownership shifts the cost structure away from a recurring per-transaction fee and toward a fixed build and maintenance expense.
Lewis notes that clients who started on a transactional model and later decided to buy out the code have been quoted between 1.5 and 2 times the original build price. “That fee is usually acceptable when they realize how much they’ll spend in the SaaS model going ahead,” he says. But the conversation is easier when ownership is planned at the start rather than renegotiated after the fact.
What Happens When the Vendor Goes Away
Title companies are also starting to think about a scenario they have not had to face much yet: what happens if the vendor changes pricing, gets acquired, or shuts down?
Lewis says he has not seen an automation vendor disappear from the title insurance market, but the concern is reasonable given how rapidly the broader AI and automation landscape is moving. AI providers in particular have been raising token pricing significantly. While RPA-based automation is generally less exposed to those fluctuations, the underlying concern is valid: companies that do not own their code have a dependency they cannot fully control.
His advice for larger operations is a multi-vendor strategy with some overlap, so that no single provider becomes a single point of failure. For smaller or mid-size companies, the more practical version of that protection is ownership of the code itself.
How to Structure the Conversation Before You Commit
Lewis recommends that any title company evaluating automation ask a few direct questions before finalizing a contract. What is the ownership structure for the code? If the engagement ends, what access does the client retain? Are there scenarios where the vendor could increase pricing mid-contract, and what are the terms around that?
These are not adversarial questions. They are due diligence. The vendors who have clear, client-friendly answers to them are typically the ones who have thought about the long-term relationship, not just the initial sale.
TrueFocus builds with ownership as a default option rather than an afterthought. The company’s model is designed around the idea that a client who owns what was built for them is a better long-term partner than one who is locked into a rental arrangement.
The ownership question is no longer a niche concern raised only by the most sophisticated buyers. It is becoming a standard part of how title companies protect themselves when they invest in automation. The ones asking it before signing are in a much better position than the ones figuring it out two years in.
Jimmy Lewis is the CEO & Co-Founder of TrueFocus Automation, a specialist in RPA (robotic process automation) and AI-driven workflow automation for the title insurance, mortgage, and real estate industries. TrueFocus has developed 840+ automation bots supporting more than 2,500 workflows and has returned over 1.3 million production hours to clients.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The views and opinions expressed herein reflect those of the individuals quoted and do not represent an endorsement of any company, product, or service mentioned. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.
