At Strategic Claim Consultants, our job is to advocate for the policyholder to level the playing field during insurance claims. When disaster strikes — fire, storm, water damage, or total loss — families and businesses are often at the mercy of the insurance adjusters. Our team provides clear guidance, straightforward advice to press back against the unacceptable norms, and someone who will stand with them against powerful interests. That is why public adjusting exists.
Yet right now, in Massachusetts federal court, a troubling legal battle reveals just how far some in the insurance industry are willing to go to keep policyholders isolated and dependent.
The Case: An “Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsement”
A respected public adjusting firm, Swerling Milton Winnick Public Insurance Adjusters, has sued Velocity Risk Underwriters and associated surplus lines carriers. At the heart of the lawsuit is a policy endorsement that makes it a condition of coverage that the insured “shall not hire, engage, retain, contract with, or otherwise utilize the services of a public adjuster” for any covered loss.
In plain English: If you hire professional help to fight for what your policy owes you, the insurance company reserves the right to deny your entire claim.
Insureds who have tried to bring in a public adjuster report threats of denied coverage, refusals to communicate, and pressure to terminate their advocate. One Rhode Island country club reportedly backed away from hiring help purely because of this endorsement.
Are insurance companies really bold enough to put this in writing and defend it in open court?
Apparently, yes.
You can read the full story and analysis from Chip Merlin here: The Insurance Industry’s New Playbook: “Hire a Public Adjuster, and You May Lose Coverage.”
This should alarm every policyholder in America. Why is the industry so threatened by licensed, state-regulated professionals whose only job is to ensure claims are paid fairly based on the facts of the loss and the facts of the coverage?
Public adjusting as a recognized profession in the United States traces back to at least the late 19th century. One of the earliest reported cases involving a public adjuster is Milch v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company (1895), where a public adjuster successfully asserted his right to payment after an insurance company tried to bypass him. Over the decades, major catastrophes showed time and again that policyholders needed independent advocates when facing complex claims and powerful insurers.
Public adjusters exist because insurance companies, left unchecked, can veer into practices that prioritize profits over promises made to their customers.
This Lawsuit Proves the Need for Public Adjusters
The very existence of these “Anti-Public Adjuster Endorsements” and the aggressive defense of them in court is existential proof of why independent public adjusters are essential. If insurers were always paying claims promptly and fairly, they would have nothing to fear from policyholders having professional representation.
Instead, they are trying to eliminate one of the few checks and balances that exist in the claims process.
To the brave firms and attorneys fighting this battle in Massachusetts and elsewhere: Godspeed. Your work defends not only your profession but the rights of every policyholder who may one day need help after a loss.
This moment calls all public adjusters to look at our own practices and ensure fidelity to truth, honor, and ethical conduct. We must lead the way. If the industry is willing to stoop to these tactics, we must rise higher — modeling integrity, transparency, and genuine service to those entrusted to our care.