When Heritage Insurance decided to sue its former independent adjuster, Jordan Lee, 1 it lit a fire that will almost certainly illuminate far more than it intended. I wrote about the whistleblower reports that emerged after Hurricane Ian in Whistleblowing Property Adjusters Confirm Fraudulent Property Insurer Practices. Independent adjusters alleged that their original estimates were secretly changed by insurers or their third-party administrators before being sent to policyholders. I noted that these claims raised real questions about transparency and ethics in the claims-handling process.
Now, those same issues are moving from news reports and regulatory testimony to the courtroom.
A Lawsuit That Draws Its Own Spotlight
When Heritage filed its lawsuit against Jordan Lee, I was surprised. Most insurers that have already weathered a regulatory fine and some tough headlines regarding claims would prefer to move on. Except for those of us deeply interested in claims handling conduct, the public and most in the industry have other things on their minds. The importance of the issue and facts tend to fade. Heritage, however, chose to go to court. In doing so, it has opened the door to discovery on everything from its Ian claims-handling protocols to its 2024 consent order with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which carried a $1 million fine for claims-handling deficiencies.
Lawsuits are like searchlights. Once you turn them on, you often can’t control what gets illuminated.
The counterclaim Lee filed against Heritage was almost inevitable. Once Heritage went on the offensive with its lawsuit, it was clear Lee would respond by putting the company’s practices under legal and public scrutiny all over again.
What the Adjuster Alleges
Lee’s counterclaim tells a story that will sound familiar to anyone following the post-Ian controversies. He says Heritage, through its third-party administrator TriStar, imposed procedures that pushed adjusters toward lower payouts by restricting overhead and profit, requiring depreciation on roofs, favoring “repair over replace” regardless of code, and directing field adjusters not to walk tile roofs, relying instead on drone photos or engineers known for finding “no damage.”
Perhaps most striking, he claims Heritage and TriStar edited his estimates after submission, sent the revised versions to policyholders with his name still on them, and hid the changes from both the adjuster and the insured. He argues that this misrepresented his work and violated Florida’s ethical standards for adjusters.
Those are serious allegations, but again, allegations are not proof. They must be proven through evidence, the same way Heritage’s evidence against Lee must be proven. This lawsuit will now test whether those claims by all parties will hold up.
Heritage’s Public Defense
Heritage has pushed back hard in public statements. Its leadership says that edits to adjuster estimates were part of a standard quality-control process designed to remove non-covered items and ensure consistent results. As proof, the company has even shared data from a review of 10,000 Ian claims showing that some revisions increased payments, some decreased them, and some were unchanged.
Heritage also points out that it has since upgraded its systems to record who edits each estimate, a reform required by the 2024 consent order. In other words, Heritage’s position is that these were not acts of fraud or retaliation, but rather acts of normal oversight that it has learned from past operational shortcomings.
Anybody running an organization of any size can certainly appreciate that processes may not be perfect, or that certain individuals within the organization may not be leading others or acting properly. Intent and motive are often difficult to discern without great transparency.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
Whatever the outcome, this case has already done something important: it’s put a spotlight back on post-catastrophe claims handling in Florida. Adjuster ethical independence, desk editing, and insurer transparency are not abstract issues. These issues directly affect how much policyholders are paid and how quickly they recover. The issues in this case are important.
As I said in prior posts, insurers can’t expect adjusters to act as professionals while stripping them of professional judgment. If an adjuster’s name appears on a document, that adjuster has the right, and arguably the ethical duty, to ensure the document reflects their own work. This case will test how the courts view that principle.
It’s worth repeating: lawsuits and allegations are not proof. The truth comes out through evidence. But as someone who’s watched these disputes unfold for decades, I can tell you that Heritage may have reopened an issue most companies would have quietly left behind. The last time a major insurance company did something like this, a secretive Jewish Lawyers list became public.
So, whether the company ultimately prevails or not, the discovery process itself will expose a great deal about how at least one insurer handled Hurricane Ian claims. In that sense, Heritage’s lawsuit against its own adjuster may end up serving as an unplanned case study for the entire insurance industry. It is also a reminder that when whistleblowers speak truthfully, sometimes the spotlight shines brightest on those who struck the match.
Thought For The Day
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
— Thomas Paine
1 Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lee, No. 2025-CA-002113 (Fla. Cir. Ct. – Hillsborough).