Florida’s public adjusters have taken the fight to the courthouse. In Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters v. Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC, 1 a new lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County’s Complex Business Division, the two leading public adjusting associations are asking a Florida court to do what regulators and legislators have so far not done and stop insurers from using policy endorsements that prohibit insureds from hiring public adjusters.
As I’ve written before in Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsements: NAPIA Takes a Leadership Stance Against the Insurance Industry Trying to Eliminate Public Adjusting, and Insurance Companies Prohibited from Placing Anti-Public Adjuster Language in Property Policies, this issue goes to the heart of what public adjusting is about: allowing policyholders to have professional representation when dealing with their insurers. These endorsements attempt to strip that right away.
The Core of the Case
The plaintiffs, FAPIA and NAPIA, allege that Velocity Risk Underwriters, a managing general agent (MGA) for several out-of-state surplus lines insurers, has been inserting an “Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement” into its policies sold in Florida.
This endorsement states that the insured “shall not hire, engage, retain, contract with, or otherwise utilize the services of a public adjuster” in connection with any covered loss. If a policyholder does hire one, Velocity allegedly refuses to deal with that adjuster, stops processing the claim, and threatens forfeiture of coverage.
In effect, Velocity tells policyholders: If you bring in a public adjuster, we will not talk to them, and you risk losing your insurance coverage.
According to the complaint, Velocity’s field adjusters are directed not to communicate with public adjusters at all, to reject any documents they send, and to suspend claim handling until the insured provides proof that the public adjuster has been terminated. This coercive practice, the suit alleges, leaves insureds with little choice but to surrender their contractual and statutory right to professional representation.
Legal Theories: Unfair Practices, Antitrust, and Public Policy
The complaint asserts three primary claims:
- Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA):
FAPIA and NAPIA argue that the Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement is both deceptive and unfair, misleading policyholders into believing they will lose coverage for hiring a licensed professional. The associations note that under Florida law, an insurer cannot forfeit coverage for a breach of a post-loss condition unless the insurer can prove material prejudice. Since a public adjuster merely performs tasks the insured could perform themselves, investigating, estimating, and negotiating the loss, there can be no such prejudice. - Declaratory Judgment:
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the endorsement is void as against Florida public policy, unenforceable as a post-loss condition, and invalid under Florida common law. They emphasize that Florida has long recognized and regulated the public adjusting profession, which the Florida Supreme Court has upheld as a legitimate and constitutionally protected business. As the complaint states, the endorsement “undermines a legitimate profession recognized by statute and licensed and regulated by the State of Florida.” - Restraint of Trade – Florida Antitrust Act (§ 542.18):
This is where the case gets especially significant. FAPIA and NAPIA allege that Velocity has conspired with its out-of-state insurer partners, such as Lloyd’s of London and Interstate Fire & Casualty, to boycott public adjusters. By agreeing to use the same anti-public adjuster endorsement in all surplus lines policies, they argue, Velocity and its partner insurers have created a concerted refusal to deal, a per se unlawful restraint of trade. The complaint bluntly states:
The effect of these agreements is a concerted boycott of public adjuster services in Florida, restraining trade, harming competition, and inflicting ongoing, irreparable harm.
Florida’s Long-Established Public Policy
The lawsuit takes great pains to remind the court that Florida law and public policy have long recognized the legitimacy of public adjusting. The Florida Supreme Court held in Larson v. Lesser (1958) that public adjusting is a “valid and legitimate occupation.” Later, in Atwater v. Kortum (2012), the court found that a public adjuster’s solicitation of business is protected commercial speech.
Moreover, Florida Administrative Code § 69B-220.201(3)(h) prohibits insurer-employed adjusters from discouraging policyholders from hiring a public adjuster. Florida Statute § 626.8796(6)(c) explicitly recognizes an insured’s right to utilize a public adjuster.
By forbidding the insured from hiring one, the complaint argues, Velocity is effectively doing what Florida law expressly forbids insurer-side adjusters from doing.
Surplus Lines Loophole: The Unregulated Frontier
Velocity operates in Florida’s surplus lines insurance market, which allows out-of-state insurers to sell policies not subject to the state’s form and rate regulation. The complaint suggests that Velocity is exploiting this freedom to impose terms, such as the Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement, that would never be permitted in the admitted market.
The plaintiffs contend that Velocity and its affiliated insurers are using this regulatory gap to gain an anti-competitive advantage by excluding public adjusters and controlling the entire claims process through insurer-controlled adjusters.
This Is An Important Lawsuit
This case is about far more than one endorsement. It represents a critical moment in the ongoing struggle between insurer power and policyholder protection.
The Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement is not just a contractual clause. Instead, it is a direct assault on a licensed trade and profession that exists to level the playing field between consumers and insurers. Can you imagine a health insurance policy that prohibited people from obtaining services from a licensed doctor?
If these endorsements were allowed to stand, insurers could condition coverage on policyholders waiving their statutory rights, silencing the very state-licensed professionals who help them obtain fair claim settlements. It would render Florida’s licensing and regulatory framework for public adjusters meaningless.
FAPIA and NAPIA’s lawsuit does something bold: it reframes the issue not merely as a consumer protection question, but as an antitrust violation. This is certainly a collusive scheme to eliminate competition from licensed public adjusters and monopolize the post-loss adjustment market.
If successful, this case could establish precedent that such anti-public adjuster provisions are not only unenforceable, but illegal restraints of trade under Florida law.
As I’ve often said, insurance is a product and industry that is supposed to serve the public interest. The insurer’s obligation is to promptly and fairly pay legitimate claims, not to intimidate or isolate policyholders by cutting off their access to professional representation.
When an insurer or its agent uses policy language to silence the only advocate the policyholder has, it is not just unfair. Instead, it undermines the social purpose of insurance.
FAPIA and NAPIA deserve credit for taking leadership in this fight. This lawsuit is not just about defending a profession; it is about defending the rights of every Florida policyholder to receive a fair and honest claim adjustment.
Thought For The Day
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
— Frederick Douglass
1 Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters v. Velocity Risk Underwriters, No. 2025-019878-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. [Miami-Dade]).