Florida insurers fight back against public adjusters with policy endorsements

Are Insurers Trying to Silence Policyholders’ Voices? Florida’s public adjusting community is pushing back hard, and for good reason. In a recent lawsuit, the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA) challenged Velocity Risk Underwriters over what are called Anti Public Adjuster Endorsements placed in certain property policies. These endorsements attempt to bar policyholders from hiring licensed public adjusters and even threaten the loss of coverage if they do. At stake is much more than one clause in a policy. This case is about fair representation, consumer rights, and restraint of trade in the insurance marketplace. The organizations bringing the lawsuit argue that these endorsements violate Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, go against public policy, and restrict fair competition. If successful, this lawsuit could reaffirm that policyholders have a right to professional advocacy, especially in complex claim disputes. It also sends a clear message across the insurance industry that insurers cannot block or intimidate the professionals who stand beside policyholders during their most vulnerable times. I will be speaking at FAPIA’s Fall Conference later today and certainly will applaud FAPIA and NAPIA for taking courageous action to defend not only their profession but also every homeowner and business owner who deserves a fair chance at recovery. https://lnkd.in/eCEWUhFi #PolicyholderRights #PublicAdjustersMatter #InsuranceFairness #LegalPrecedent #ConsumerProtection

Florida homeowners are experiencing property insurance rate reductions: in fact, Panhandle-based insurance agent Trey Hutt notes an average decrease of 10.3% over the past year in his area. These lower rates come directly on the heels of the 2022 and 2023 reforms that addressed lawsuit abuse and curbed incentives for inflated claims. The result is a market that has been stabilizing for the past 12 months by every key measure, after multiple years of steep premium hikes. Consumers are benefitting from more carriers competing for their business, and the proof is in the rate filings: declines instead of double-digit increases. Florida is showing that litigation reform works. By curbing abusive practices and creating room for healthy competition, lawmakers have set the stage for a stronger, more resilient insurance market that puts homeowners first. https://lnkd.in/exrbuW9s

Florida’s property insurance landscape continues to evolve. Governor Ron DeSantis recently told insurers that the state’s legal reforms are beginning to yield results, citing declining lawsuits, moderating rate requests, and renewed market competition. With 17 new insurers entering the state and rate reductions outpacing increases, the changes could mark a pivotal moment for both the industry and policyholders. While the reforms have reduced litigation volume and encouraged more private carriers to re-enter the market, challenges remain including inflation, reinsurance costs, and catastrophic storm risks. For Florida homeowners, understanding how these developments affect coverage and claims will be critical moving forward. 👉 Read more about the state’s insurance market changes: https://lnkd.in/evxxTsDw #FloridaInsurance #InsuranceMarket #InsuranceReform #BoggsLawGroup #HomeownersCoverage

Florida’s property insurance market is seeing new players. Two more homeowner insurers, including one led by the former CEO of Metromile, have been approved to join the state. Both plan to take on thousands of Citizens policies as part of the state’s depopulation effort. What does this mean for Florida homeowners navigating insurance options? 👉 Read more: https://lnkd.in/egFS3p27 #FloridaInsurance #HomeInsuranceNews #BoggsLawGroup #InsuranceUpdates

In this story from Reuters' The Insurer, PIFF's Michael Carlson shares insight on the Florida insurance market moving from deeply unbalanced to cautiously stable. More in "Reforms fuel Florida insurance revival:" https://lnkd.in/exvVFh4T

This case really highlights the complexity — and importance — of clear agreements and governance structures between Authorised Representatives and their licensee networks. As the courts have reinforced, licence holders carry the ultimate responsibility for client protection and compliance, while ARs must maintain integrity and transparency in every aspect of their work. It’s a strong reminder that alignment, trust, and shared values between both parties are essential for sustainable partnerships. It also reinforces why finding the right network or AR relationship is so critical. When culture, compliance standards, and long-term vision are truly aligned, every party benefits — most importantly, the clients.

Is your home insurance truly up to date? A recent appellate decision in Pitts v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company highlights the critical role of accurate insurance applications, including renewals. In this Polk County case, despite 15 years of coverage, Ms. Pitts’ estate was denied a claim for water damage after she relocated to assisted living and rented out her home. The insurance company initially honored the claim but later denied coverage because her renewal application did not disclose her absence from the home. This decision reinforces the legal principle that application accuracy can determine coverage, making it essential for homeowners to update insurers about changes in residency or property use. https://lnkd.in/eMbHNhxS #HomeInsurance #InsuranceTips #LegalUpdate #AnsbacherLaw

🚨 BREAKING: Public Adjusters Fight Back Against Anti-Consumer Insurance Practices in Florida 🚨 The Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (FAPIA) and the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA) have filed a major lawsuit against Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC! The stakes couldn’t be higher for Florida homeowners. Also, this exclusion is likely to try and move to other states. At the heart of the case is Velocity’s use of an “Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement,” a policy clause that prohibits insureds from hiring licensed Public Adjusters to help them navigate claims after property damage. If a homeowner dares to hire a Public Adjuster, Velocity allegedly refuses to pay on the claim. This is akin to a mortgage company saying they won’t right a mortgage for any house sold by a real estate agent. Florida has recognized and regulated for over 70 years. 👉 Follow me for updates as this case unfolds. #SupportPublicAdjusters #FloridaHomeowners #FAPIA #NAPIA

I had an additional thought on this while responding to Alejandro Garcia. I'm kind of a nerd when it comes to Sebo vs. American Home Assurance. In that case, the FL SC ultimately decided clear and unambiguous underwriting as the key to determining whether anti concurrent causation clauses survived a challenge. That's why I think the actual winner of that case was Mr. Sebo and every insurance carrier. Mr. Sebo won his case and carriers won the ability to enforce anti concurrent causation clauses and got free instruction from the FL SC on how to do it. Anti Concurrent Causation clauses were not a guarantee prior to that decision and they are not enforceable in all states. In a way, the Sebo decision may be an exposure for FAPIA on this case. We are talking about a clause that limits insureds' contractual rights, much like the anti concurrent causation clause limited an insured's contractual rights in determining which causation theory would apply to their claim. Velocity's policy is a singular limiting clause, much like how the ISO wrote ACC clauses in only one section of the policy for the last probably 50 years. Going back to contract law, if you have a limiting clause in one section of a contract but not another, it's presumed that the exclusion of that clause in the second section is intentional and creates an ambiguity. (Hat tip to Mark Boyle for explaining that to me.) It could be that Velocity's policy creates an ambiguity by having this anti PA clause in one section, but not all sections of the policy with language where an insured could engage the services of a public adjuster. However, in winning that fight, the court could also determine that it is possible to write a policy in a way that this anti PA clause could be enforceable. Of course, I could be completely wrong. They are not the first carrier I know of who has explored creating anti PA clauses. We just never had case law before that I’m aware of.

I follow a number of insurance discussions, and one over the weekend was from a CAT adjuster group saying that "this year's deployments seems slower than normal." I'd like to share a stat I saw in USAA's 2024 Annual Report. 90% of their 2025 wildfire claims were settled within a month... The story in the article below talks about them paying a property claim in 4 days. Let that sink in for a minute. From DOL to payment in 4 days for a property claim. Then think about the process carriers are following now: 1. leverage satellite/drone to quickly assess all the PIF's in the affected area 2. segment claims into various buckets a. total losses - pay out b. unaffected - communicate with insured c. somewhat affected, but seem to be less than total loss - communicate with insured 3. collaborate with policyholders and view their photos of the damage by using Desk Adjuster resources 4. many carriers are now using their own in-house CAT teams of full-time staff that deploy for short stints, because they are already very familiar with the policy, they provide that "feel" of great customer service from the carrier, and the carrier has high trust in those people's ability to interact with insured and write an appropriate estimate 5. only deploy a third-party field resource if all other options have been exhausted That is why you see a number of adjusters getting into the appraisal and umpire business, because that provides them with additional revenue stream options.