Insurance Lawsuit Targets Florida Roofer Restrictions
The lawsuit contends that restrictions the state placed on roofers to try to curb problems in the property-insurance system violate First Amendment rights as they deal with issues such as advertising and being able to advise homeowners about insurance coverage.
June 29, 2022 at 11:13 AM
3 minute read
A contractors group and a roofing firm have refueled a federal-court fight about restrictions the state placed on roofers to try to curb problems in the property-insurance system.
The Restoration Association of Florida and Apex Roofing Reconstruction LLC filed a revised lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of restrictions approved by lawmakers in 2021 and during a special legislative session last month.
The lawsuit contends, in part, that the restrictions violate First Amendment rights as they deal with issues such as advertising and being able to advise homeowners about insurance coverage. During last month's special session, for example, lawmakers required roofers to put disclaimers on advertising, a requirement that the lawsuit described as "unduly burdensome."
"[The] disclaimers also constitute forbidden content discrimination under the First Amendment because it imposes, solely on a small set of commercial speakers — roofing contractors — compelled speech that, if otherwise valid, is equally applicable to a wide range of commercial actors, including doctors, automobile repair shops, and other property repair and remediation companies, about payments of insurance deductibles and fraudulent insurance claims," the lawsuit said.
Lawmakers in 2021 passed a measure (SB 76) that placed a series of restrictions on roofers, including seeking to prevent roofing contractors from soliciting homeowners to file insurance claims through a "prohibited advertisement." The law defined a prohibited advertisement as "any written or electronic communication by a contractor that encourages, instructs, or induces a consumer to contact a contractor or public adjuster for the purpose of making an insurance claim for roof damage. The term includes, but is not limited to, door hangers, business cards, magnets, flyers, pamphlets, and emails."
In a separate lawsuit filed last year by Gale Force Roofing Restoration LLC, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction against the advertising restriction on First Amendment grounds. That led lawmakers during last month's special session to revamp the advertising restriction.
They passed a measure (SB 2-D) that required advertisements to include disclaimers about issues such as informing consumers that they are required to pay any deductibles and that it is fraudulent to file insurance claims that include false or misleading information. Advertisements that do not include the disclaimers would be considered prohibited.
Walker on June 10 dismissed the Gale Force lawsuit after attorneys said it was moot because of the change.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in January rejected a request by the association and Apex for a preliminary injunction against the law, saying the plaintiffs had not shown they had legal standing. As a result, the plaintiffs revised the lawsuit in January and again Monday, according to a court docket.
In addition to challenging the advertising disclaimers, the lawsuit argues that a series of the restrictions violate First Amendment and due-process rights and the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. As an example, the law passed in 2021 prevents roofing contractors from interpreting "policy provisions or advising an insured (customer) regarding coverages or duties under the insured's property insurance policy or adjusting a property insurance claim on behalf of the insured, unless the contractor holds a license as a public adjuster."
The lawsuit contends the restriction violates First Amendment rights.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMediating Community Association Disputes: Tips for Attorneys, and Their Clients
6 minute readCole, Scott & Kissane Keeps Transitioning More Resources Into Construction As Tort Reform Changes Loom
4 minute readCheap Lumber, Stronger Hurricanes—Perfect Storm for the Strained Florida Insurance Market
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250