TALAHASSEE - A group of contractors and an umbrella firm have stepped up a federal court battle over a state-imposed restriction on roofers to try to curb problems in the property insurance system.
The Florida Restoration Association and Apek Roofing & Reconstruction LLC filed a revised lawsuit Monday challenging the constitutionality of restrictions adopted by lawmakers in 2021 and during a special legislative session last month.
The lawsuit partially alleges that the restrictions violate the rights from the First Amendment because they deal with issues such as advertising and the possibility of advising homeowners on insurance. During last month’s special session, for example, lawmakers demanded that roofers disclaim advertising - a condition the lawsuit described as “excessively burdensome.”
“(Disclaimer) is also a prohibited discrimination of content under the First Amendment because it imposes, exclusively on a small group of commercial speakers - umbrella contractors - forced speech which, if otherwise valid, is equally applicable to a wide range of commercial actors, including doctors, car mechanics and other companies for the repair and rehabilitation of property, on the payment of insurance deductibles and false insurance claims, “the lawsuit states.
Roofing requirements have been a key issue as lawmakers have grappled with widespread problems in the property insurance system involving insurers who reject clients and demand large rate increases. Insurers blame dubious, if not false, claims for damage to the roof to increase costs and contribute to financial losses.
Walker
In 2021, lawmakers passed a measure (SB 76) that set restrictions on roofers, including an effort to prevent roofers from asking homeowners to file insurance claims through “prohibited advertising.” The law defined prohibited advertising as “any written or electronic communication by a contractor that encourages, directs or induces a consumer to contact a contractor or public contractor to file a claim for roof damage insurance. 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, U.S. Chief District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction against advertising restrictions under the First Amendment.
That prompted lawmakers during a special session last month to revise the advertising restriction. They enacted a measure (SB 2-D) that required advertisements to include a disclaimer on matters such as informing consumers that they were required to pay all deductions and that it was false to file insurance claims involving false or misleading information. Ads that do not include disclaimers will be considered prohibited.
Walker dismissed Gale Force’s lawsuit on June 10 after lawyers said it was in dispute over the change.
But that did not solve the lawsuit filed last year by the Florida and Apex Restoration Association. The case called into question advertising restrictions, along with other parts of the 2021 law that imposed restrictions on roofers.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in January rejected the association’s and Apex’s request for a preliminary ban against the law, saying prosecutors had not shown they had legal status. As a result, prosecutors revised the lawsuit in January and again on Monday, according to the court file.
In addition to challenging the disclaimer on advertising, the lawsuit alleges that the violation violates the First Amendment and the right to a process and a trade clause in the US Constitution.
For example, a law passed in 2021 prevents roofers from interpreting “policy provisions or advising the insured (buyer) regarding coverage or obligations under the insured’s property insurance policy or adjusting the property insurance requirement on behalf of the insured, unless the contractor holds a license to public share “.
The lawsuit alleges that the restriction violates the rights of the First Amendment.
“The ban is so comprehensive that, under its terms, the roof contractor may not inform the insured that damage to his roof is likely to be covered by his policy and that they should call their insurer to check it or that the policy allows the homeowner to grant benefits to the roof contractor.” a mechanism that allows the roofer to get into the insured’s shoes and submit a request directly to the insurer for the covered repair “, it is stated in the lawsuit.
In addition to the federal case, the restoration association is also a party to two lawsuits challenging parts of the law passed at last month’s special session.
In one of these cases, the association and Florida Premier Roofing LLC challenged the constitutionality of a law (SB 4-D) that combines changes to property insurance with new requirements aimed at strengthening the safety of condominium buildings. The lawsuit claims that the bill is unconstitutional because it connects “extensive different entities”, violating the constitutional requirement of the state that the laws deal with individual entities. “
In another case, Leon County, an association and Air Quality Assessors LLC, an Orlando-based company that deals with mold testing and leak detection, challenged part of SB 2-D, which placed a new limit on attorneys’ fees in lawsuits against insurance companies.
Both cases in Leon County remain pending.