The question asked in the title above will likely conjure reactions all over the emotional spectrum. Some might rejoice at the prospect of no Public Adjusters (PA’s). Others, not so much. Many familiar with my opinions might believe I fall into the first category.
But… I am not Anti-Public Adjuster. I am, however, very Pro-Consumer and proud to have authored several insurance statutes promoting consumer choice.
Keep that in mind as you read (perhaps re-read) a November 2025 article in the Insurance Journal (The Journal) titled Florida, National Groups File Suit Over ‘Anti-Public Adjuster’ Endorsements.
The article reveals that the pre-fix “anti” originates from the actual “Complaint” filed by the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (NAPIA & FAPIA) in their action against Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC. Velocity, is an MGA for several E&S carriers (including Lloyds of London). It uses an endorsement modifying the policy conditions to state that the named insured “…shall not hire, engage, retain, contract with, or otherwise utilize the services of a public adjuster…”
In short, plaintiffs allege that such a prohibition is anti-competitive and an illegal and unfair business practice. It is “coercive” and violates “…adjusters and insureds’ statutory rights” among other things, according to the “Complaint.”
While some may not agree such an endorsement is “anti” Public Adjuster, in my opinion, and contrary to the plaintiff’s “Complaint”, it is…pro-consumer. I assume, for example, that it reduces loss costs and in so doing also attenuates premium. Concurrently, it may contribute to the willingness of these and other non-admitted carriers to insure homes perched on the worlds hurricane highway. After all, isn’t that the reason for an E&S market–to grant reduced regulation of form and rate in exchange for coverage that might not otherwise be available? What’s wrong with consumers exercising their right to choose in this way? (See Note #4 below)
But… there’s also a bigger picture to consider.
I believe any endorsement to prohibit or restrict the use of PA’s could have profound market implications going forward. Understanding those implications beyond the E&S market, however, is convoluted by two realities: one, an unwillingness by the plaintiffs to comment beyond their “Complaint” against Velocity; and two, what the admitted market is also doing that may restrict the use of PA’s by claimants.
According to the Journal, four admitted carriers are seeking OIR (Office of Insurance Regulation) approval of a similar “but optional endorsement.” They are: American Integrity Insurance Company (AIIC), Orange Insurance Exchange, Safe Harbor Insurance and US Coastal Property and Casualty Insurance Co. One material difference is that, unlike Velocity, they offer premium discounts to consumers who choose an optional endorsement versus a mandatory endorsement creating an absolute prohibition.
In summary, there are two approaches: one, in the non-admitted market and, the second in the admitted market. The first is mandatory, the second is optional with a discount. The question I have is what might happen if both approaches go against the wishes of Public Adjusters. What if the PA suit to stop Velocity is, for whatever reason, un-successful AND the voluntary filings from admitted carriers are all approved by OIR. What then?
Without the plaintiff’s willingness to comment, I’m left to my own speculation. (See Note #1 below), but…if the discount offered in exchange for a promise to not utilize a PA is appropriate (actuarially and otherwise), OIR cannot legally deny the four admitted carrier filings–my non-lawyer opinion, of course.
Buttressing my opinion, however, is that the admitted market endorsement has already been approved for at least one of the four carriers. American Integrity was approved to offer the voluntary endorsement in November of 2024 (FCP 24-052992).
That means the other admitted carriers will likely be approved as well, assuming their discount and circumstances are similar.
And, if that happens and history is any indication, other admitted carriers will submit “me too” filings doing essentially the same thing. Indeed, they may feel forced to do so to remain competitive.
And that’s the rub–E&S carriers prohibiting the use of Public Adjusters is one thing. But, the entire admitted market doing essentially the same thing in exchange for a premium discount, well… that’s an existential threat, in my opinion. One likely to change Public Adjusting as we’ve come to know it–both in Florida and perhaps, ultimately, across the country.
There are currently only 130,058 HO-3 polices in the E&S market. (See Note #4 below). According to OIR, however, AIIC insures 379,879 Florida residences. Orange Insurance Exchange has 33,130 residential policies. Safe Harbor has 73,259 and US Coastal P&C 40,879. That’s a grand total of 527,147 admitted market policies that may soon offer insureds a way to reduce their premiums without having to reduce their coverage.
Florida has 7,589,043 residential policies in force as of September 2025. I’m at a loss as to why any carrier would refrain from offering an endorsement similar to AIIC’s. Also, and again for an appropriate discount, Citizens might even do so. (See Note #2 below).
In fact, the threat to PA’s is so real, I could envision them pushing for a statutory prohibition against “Anti-PA” endorsements generally, without regard to the policy type (admitted or non-admitted) and without regard to any premium discount that might be offered. Again, just my opinion.
Keep in mind the choice consumers will be confronting: having already paid a premium for 100% of their claim to be paid, they’ll be opting for a lower premium and avoidance of up to 20% of their claim going to a Public Adjuster. (See NOTE #3 below)
Of the 2,617 resident PA’s in Florida FAPIA represents only 650, according to the “Complaint.” But I bet they’ll be fighting tooth and nail for something (anything) that might forestall what could be the beginning of the end to full time Public Adjusting.
What do you think? What am I missing? I welcome any and all comments from readers on either side of this issue. Log in and let me know your thoughts.
##end##
Note #1: I emailed FAPIA the following: “I would welcome any official statement FAPIA would like to make regarding these happenings and in particular your opinion of what impact it might have on the PA profession, long term, in Florida. For example, if such endorsements are approved for use, some with whom I have spoken predict it might ultimately eliminate ‘Full Time’ public adjusting as we have come to know it.”
I received the following response: “While we are unable to provide detailed comments at this time due to pending litigation, we believe the complaint speaks for itself. Our position and concerns are clearly outlined in the filing, and we will allow the legal process to move forward.”
Despite this, I am willing to print any response FAPIA or the plaintiffs may have regarding this issue and will do so completely unedited.
Note #2: Thanks to recent comprehensive tort reforms, Citizens policy count has dropped to 385,000, the lowest since its creation post Hurricane Andrew—and down from its recent high of 1.4 million. I can foresee where Citizens might even implement a mandatory version of the admitted market endorsement already approved for use by AIIC. Again, plaintiff’s were not available to comment on this and other questions I had regarding the suit and its potential to impact the Florida market.
Note #3: The actual “Complaint” references a study of Public Adjusters conducted by the Office of Program Policy and Government Analysis (OPPAGA). That study, I contend, is severely flawed on the subject of whether insureds who hire public adjusters “generally received larger insurance settlements” as stated in the “Complaint.” This flaw in the OPPAGA study has been exacerbated by the proliferation of PA advertising stating that claimants can receive 747% more if they hire a Public Adjuster. See my article debunking that claim here: PUBLIC ADJUSTERS & 747%–BOGUS! To see examples of how the figure was misused by some PA’s, see my follow up article here: CITIZENS PA’s…According to a Government Study!
Note #4: According to the latest available report from the Florida Surplus Lines Service Office (FSLSO), Florida has 130,000 non-admitted HO-3 policies paying an average premium of $5,323 and a total of $692,298,792 in premium volume.
Please view “The Johnson Strategies Story”
IMPORTANT: If you enjoyed this post you’re invited to subscribe for automatic notifications by going to: www.johnsonstrategiesllc.com. Enter your email address where indicated. If you’re already on the website at Johnson Strategies, LLC, go to the home page and enter your email address on the right-hand side. Remember, you’ll receive an email confirming your acceptance, so…check and clear your spam filter for notifications from Johnson Strategies, LLC. ENJOY!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.