This publish follows “Does the Insurance coverage Provider Pay the Public Adjuster Charge?” the place I indicated that public adjuster charges can’t be collected underneath a first-party insurance coverage coverage. At this time’s dialogue signifies that in a industrial coverage permitting for “claims adjustment bills,” public adjuster charges, however not accounting charges, may be collected per one’s court docket’s view.
Following Hurricane Katrina, CSX Company sought reimbursement from its insurers for the thousands and thousands it spent responding to storm losses. Among the many disputed objects had been charges CSX paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which the corporate employed to gather and analyze information in help of its insurance coverage declare. The core authorized query was whether or not these PwC prices certified as “claims adjustment bills” underneath CSX’s property insurance coverage insurance policies.
The coverage supplied that protection prolonged to “the expense of particles elimination, rerail, salvage, protection, claims changes bills and rerouting of insured property broken by an insured peril.” CSX argued that PwC’s work fell inside this provision as a result of it was integral to the adjustment of its declare. The corporate maintained that the phrase “claims changes bills” was broad, unqualified, and never restricted solely to the prices incurred by insurers. In accordance with CSX, the method of adjusting a declare essentially concerned each the insurer’s adjuster and the policyholder’s representatives, and PwC’s companies in making ready and presenting the declare had been a part of the identical adjustment course of. To carry in any other case, CSX contended, would render the protection meaningless, because the insured by no means straight pays the insurer’s personal adjusters.
The insurers rejected this interpretation. The insurers argued that the abnormal that means of “claims changes bills” referred to the prices of adjusting claims from the insurer’s perspective. These could be bills related to investigating, evaluating, and settling losses. Of their view, what PwC did was “declare preparation,” not declare adjustment. They argued that CSX was wrongly attempting to make the availability into “claims preparation expense” protection.
They pressured that PwC was retained by CSX, not by the insurers, and that declare preparation bills are historically borne by policyholders until a coverage particularly offers in any other case. To just accept CSX’s studying, they warned, would rework abnormal consulting and accounting charges into coated losses, a end result the insurers insisted the contract language didn’t help.
The court docket finally sided with the insurers. 1 It seemed to trade definitions, noting that “within the insurance coverage trade, the phrase ‘loss adjustment bills’ usually means the expense incurred by the insurer to research and settle a declare.”
The court docket then drew an vital distinction underneath Florida regulation, recognizing {that a} certified adjuster could possibly be an unbiased adjuster, an organization worker adjuster, or a public adjuster. Florida Statutes outline a public adjuster as “any individual … who … prepares, completes, or information an insurance coverage declare kind for an insured.”
The court docket emphasised that “the general public adjuster is the one one who is restricted by definition to behave on behalf of an insured. The [other types of adjusters], by definition, signify insurers.” Making use of this distinction, the court docket held: “Within the current case, the Stipulated Details present that PwC is a consulting agency, not an adjuster, and that it was retained by CSX. As a way to get well its bills, CSX wants to point out that PwC is a public adjuster. Since CSX has didn’t display that, it’s not entitled to get well its bills.”
Whereas insurance policies like CSX’s might cowl claims adjustment bills, this case, if adopted, will restrict that phrase to the prices tied to the insurer’s personal adjustment course of or probably to licensed public adjusters working straight on behalf of policyholders. In contrast, charges for accountants or consultants retained to arrange or maximize a declare are usually seen as non-recoverable declare preparation bills.
I might be curious to see the end result if a industrial policyholder whose coverage had this clause had been profitable in having its public adjuster charges paid. Possibly there’s a restricted methodology to have a policyholder’s price paid by an insurer underneath a first-party contract.
Thought For The Day
“The distinction between successful and dropping is most frequently not quitting.”
—Walt Disney
1 CSX Corp. v. North River Ins. Co., No. 3:08-CV-00531, 2025 WL 10671267 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2009). See additionally, CSX Company’s Movement for Abstract Judgment, and Insurers’ Movement for Abstract Judgment.