Florida HB 1047: Adjusting the Balance Between Insurers, Public Adjusters, and Policyholders

In Florida, property insurance reform has been at the forefront of nearly every legislative session in recent years. With hurricanes, tropical storms, and flooding causing billions in damages, lawmakers are searching for ways to stabilize the insurance market. The latest proposal, known as House Bill 1047 (HB 1047), introduces new requirements for both insurers and public adjusters.

While HB 1047 is framed as a way to improve communication and reduce disputes, many in the adjusting community believe it could restrict the very advocates policyholders rely on when navigating complex claims.

Key Provisions of HB 1047

HB 1047 touches on both insurer conduct and public adjuster practices. Here are the highlights:

• Public Adjuster Communications: When communicating with policyholders by text message, public adjusters would only be required to include their “appointment type” (public adjuster, company adjuster, or independent adjuster) in the initial message—not in every follow-up. This small clarification is intended to reduce unnecessary repetition. See the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee analysis.

• Conduct Restrictions: Public adjusters would be prohibited from engaging in “adversarial conduct” with insurer representatives. While the bill does not fully define the term, it raises concerns about whether vigorous advocacy for policyholders might be mischaracterized as adversarial.

• Insurer Disclosure Requirements: HB 1047 also places new obligations on insurers:

  • When issuing a preliminary or partial estimate, insurers must clearly state that the evaluation is not final and is subject to change.

  • When making a partial payment, insurers must notify the policyholder that the claim remains under review and that additional payments may follow.

Together, these changes aim to improve clarity in the claims process, but they also raise questions about how adjusters can effectively represent their clients.

Why This Matters for Policyholders

For homeowners, HB 1047 could have both benefits and drawbacks.

• Improved Insurer Transparency: Clearer disclosures from insurers about partial payments and ongoing evaluations could help reduce confusion. Too often, policyholders assume that a partial payment is the final settlement, when in fact additional funds may still be owed.

• Limits on Advocacy: On the other hand, vague restrictions on “adversarial conduct” may discourage public adjusters from pushing back against insurer positions. Policyholders rely on adjusters to challenge underpayments, delays, or denials. If strong advocacy is interpreted as adversarial, consumers could lose critical support.

• Communication Rules: Streamlining text message requirements is relatively minor, but it shows lawmakers are paying close attention to even small aspects of adjuster conduct. This could signal more detailed regulation in the future.

Industry Response

Public adjuster associations in Florida have voiced concern that HB 1047’s conduct provisions could create a chilling effect on advocacy. What one insurer sees as “adversarial,” a homeowner may see as essential negotiation.

Meanwhile, insurers argue that the bill helps set professional boundaries and reduces hostile interactions that can stall claim resolution. By requiring more explicit disclaimers on partial estimates and payments, insurers also hope to reduce litigation by ensuring policyholders are informed from the start.

This divide reflects the ongoing tension in Florida’s insurance market: balancing the need for stability with the rights of homeowners to secure fair settlements.

The Bigger Picture

Florida is not acting in isolation. Across the country, lawmakers are considering new restrictions and standards for public adjusters:

• California AB 597 imposes a 15% fee cap on adjusters handling disaster claims and limits fee structures tied to prior insurer payments. Read our blog on AB 597 here.

• South Carolina Bill 196 proposes a 10% fee cap and bans any upfront payment before settlement. See bill text.

• The NAIC Public Adjuster Model Act is being revised, with potential changes to advertising, compensation, and referral rules that could influence legislation nationwide.

These trends suggest that Florida’s HB 1047 is part of a broader wave of efforts to more tightly regulate the adjusting profession.

What the American Adjuster Association is Watching

At AAA, we support efforts that enhance clarity for consumers—but we are cautious about provisions that may restrict their right to strong representation. Florida policyholders already face some of the most challenging insurance conditions in the country. Premiums are among the highest in the nation, and carriers have gone insolvent in recent years due to catastrophic storm losses.

In such an environment, it is essential that policyholders retain access to independent, licensed adjusters who can fight for a fair settlement. If HB 1047’s vague language on “adversarial conduct” is applied too broadly, it risks weakening this vital resource for homeowners.

Conclusion

Florida’s HB 1047 seeks to improve transparency and reduce conflicts in the property insurance claims process. While some changes—like clearer insurer disclosures—may benefit consumers, others raise concerns about limiting the ability of public adjusters to fully advocate for their clients.

The American Adjuster Association will continue to track HB 1047 as it moves through the legislature. We remain committed to ensuring that any reforms strike the right balance: protecting consumers while preserving their access to skilled, independent representation during one of the most stressful times of their lives.