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
© 2025 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 AllSouth Florida Real Estate Lawyers See More Deals Flow, But Concerns Linger
6 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readMediating Community Association Disputes: Tips for Attorneys, and Their Clients
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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