Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsements and the Right to Hire a Public Adjuster
Can insurers prohibit their insureds from hiring a public adjuster? That question is at the center of Swerling Milton Winnick Public Insurance Adjusters, Inc. v. Velocity Risk Underwriters, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12095 (D. Mass.). The lawsuit, which began in Massachusetts Superior Court before removal to federal court in Boston, challenges the insurers’ alleged use of policy language to threaten loss of coverage when an insured retains a public adjuster.
These policy conditions, commonly called “anti-public adjuster” endorsements, prohibit or restrict insureds from hiring public adjusters to assist them after a property loss. They can put the policyholders in the difficult position of choosing between professional assistance with a claim and preserving insurance coverage.
Against that backdrop, Massachusetts has enacted legislation addressing these provisions. On August 7, 2026, Governor Maura Healey signed Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2026, “An Act Further Regulating Insurance Claims,” which takes effect November 5, 2026. Beginning on that date, the law will prohibit insurers, including non-admitted and surplus lines insurers, from using policy language that prohibits an insured from hiring a public adjuster as a condition of recovery under a property and casualty policy. It makes that language unenforceable and requires its removal while preserving the remaining policy terms. The law also adds a corresponding provision to the statute governing unfair claim settlement practices. See 2026 Mass. Acts ch. 187, §§ 1–2, adding Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 2C and ch. 176D, § 3(9)(o).
Other states have addressed the issue, although the scope of their protections differs. Louisiana and Texas join Massachusetts in prohibiting Anti-Public Adjuster policy provisions by statute, although Louisiana expressly excludes commercial policies written by surplus lines insurers. Tex. Ins. Code § 4102.007; La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1274(A)–(B). In New York, however, the court treated the insurer’s enforcement of its Anti-Public Adjuster endorsement as a lawful exercise of contractual rights when dismissing the public adjuster’s claims. Barbato v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), ECF No. 30 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026). Connecticut, home of the “Insurance Capital of the World,” explicitly licenses and regulates public adjusters but has no express statutory ban against anti-public adjuster endorsements.
The practical value of access to a public adjuster becomes clearer when considering an actual claim. I became aware of a suburban Massachusetts church whose insurer initially offered approximately $5,000.00 for weather-related repairs that cost more than $100,000.00. The church’s policy did not contain an anti-public adjuster endorsement, but its representatives did not realize they could retain a public adjuster to assist with the claim.
On the advice of a former church member who happened to be an attorney, the church retained a public adjuster. The insurer ultimately reimbursed the church for nearly all of its damage, and even after accounting for the public adjuster’s fee, the church achieved a substantially better result. Although this claim did not involve an anti-public adjuster endorsement, it illustrates why access to professional assistance can matter when an insurer’s offer falls substantially short of the policyholder’s documented repair costs.
For insureds and their advisers, the practical lesson starts with reviewing the policy for restrictions on retaining a public adjuster and determining how applicable state law treats them. Understanding those provisions before a dispute develops can help policyholders make informed decisions about obtaining assistance with a claim.
