The long-awaited and fiercely fought case involving a roofing contractor that challenged the Texas Division of Insurance coverage (TDI) laws concerning public insurance coverage adjusters and the Texas Insurance coverage Code resulted within the Texas Supreme Court docket discovering for TDI and towards the roofing contractor’s First and Fourteenth Modification arguments of free speech. 1 The underside line result’s that public adjuster licensing legal guidelines stop non-licensed people from practising public adjusting. The free speech arguments don’t allow non-licensed restoration contractors to follow public adjusting.
Earlier than analyzing the case, notice that insurance coverage restoration contractors can nonetheless clarify their pricing and technique of restore to insurance coverage firm adjusters. Certainly, insurance coverage firm and impartial adjusters, as a part of their obligation of fine religion, ought to conduct a full investigation, which incorporates discussing the pricing and technique of restore with the policyholder’s contractor. This exercise has lengthy been upheld as correct and is present in bulletins issued by Departments of Insurance coverage and talked about on this weblog.
What just isn’t allowed is for restoration contractors to regulate the declare for the policyholder, contract to supply declare adjustment companies for the policyholder, or solicit to conduct public adjusting companies. It ought to be famous that in Texas, public adjusters are prohibited from appearing because the contractor and public adjuster on the identical case.
The Texas Supreme Court docket’s evaluation of this example will be summarized as follows:
Court docket’s Evaluation:
- First Modification:
- Skilled Conduct vs. Speech: The court docket held that the challenged legal guidelines regulate skilled conduct, not speech. The licensing requirement and dual-capacity prohibition pertain to the position an individual performs within the claims course of, not the content material of their communication.
- Nonexpressive Business Transaction: The statutes goal nonexpressive business actions, corresponding to appearing on behalf of an insured in negotiating or effecting the settlement of a declare. These actions are inherently noncommunicative and thus not protected by the First Modification.
- Speech Incidental to Conduct: The court docket emphasised that even when speech is concerned in these actions, it’s incidental to the nonexpressive conduct being regulated. As such, the laws don’t set off First Modification scrutiny.
- Fourteenth Modification (Due Course of – Vagueness):
- Truthful Discover and Enforcement: A statute is unconstitutionally obscure if it fails to present truthful discover of what conduct is prohibited or if it permits for arbitrary enforcement. The court docket discovered that the statutes in query clearly proscribe the conduct of appearing as a public adjuster with no license and of contractors adjusting claims on properties they’re contracted to restore.
- Software to Stonewater: Stonewater’s contractual language and promoting supplies explicitly approved them to barter insurance coverage claims on behalf of their prospects, falling squarely throughout the statutory definition of a public insurance coverage adjuster. Due to this fact, the statutes supplied adequate discover and weren’t obscure on this context.
The Texas Supreme Court docket concluded that the laws in query don’t regulate speech however regulate skilled conduct. These laws present clear discover of what’s required of them and what’s regulated. Laws that regulate skilled conduct, even when they by the way contain speech, don’t implicate the First Modification.
Additional, laws that stop public adjusters and contractors from serving in twin roles are affordable and are designed to stop conflicts of curiosity. The court docket additional famous that these public adjusting licensing laws usually are not unconstitutionally obscure. As a substitute, they supply clear steerage as to what’s allowed and what’s not allowed.
I first famous this case over two years in the past in “Can Texas Roofing and Restoration Firms Promote That They Are Insurance coverage Specialists and Can Negotiate on the Policyholder’s Behalf?” I up to date the case in a put up, Replace on the Texas Contractor vs. Unauthorized Observe of Public Adjusting Case, the place I acknowledged:
People hate to be advised that we can’t do one thing. I really feel the identical manner. But, most states regulate who can repair roofs, who can present engineering companies, who can follow legislation, and who can follow public adjusting to guard our fellow residents from those that wouldn’t have the credentials.
TDI and all departments of insurance coverage have an obligation to guard policyholders and the general public. The interpretation of insurance coverage coverage phrases, advantages which are out there, and numerous authorized obligations of policyholders are complicated and important. A lot of these points don’t have anything to do with the price of fixing a roof. Having credentialed people who’re specialists in these areas is actually the enterprise of regulatory our bodies, and it’s within the public’s curiosity to stop these with out these credentials from doubtlessly harming the general public.
Public adjusting and insurance coverage restoration building are each essential to the general public. The interaction between the 2 and the position of the regulator is what this case is about.
The present Texas determination resolved these points by returning to how the insurance coverage and public adjusting legal guidelines have been interpreted for fairly a while in most jurisdictions, with Illinois being essentially the most important exception as a result of most public adjusters in Illinois may legally act as contractors.
Thought For The Day
We don’t imagine that on this nation, freedom is absolute. We don’t imagine that the person is completely free to do something he needs.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt
1 Texas Dept. of Ins. v. Stonewater Roofing, Ltd., No 22-0427 (Tex. June 7, 2024).