State Sen. Jim Boyd (R-Brandenton) is vowing to push for further property insurance reforms in Florida in the next legislative session after a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against part of an insurance bill signed into law this year.
In a case now before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, plaintiff Gale Force Roofing and Restoration LLC won a temporary injunction against a section of the new law. That section restricts contractors from soliciting homeowners through advertisements encouraging consumers to contact contractors for the purpose of filing an insurance claim for roof damage.
And last month, the plaintiff filed a brief with the court for summary judgment against the defendant, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The law’s restrictions on solicitations amount to an infringement of the contractor’s First Amendment rights and should be permanently enjoined, according to the plaintiff’s filing.
“The act is an unconscionable attack on the right for homeowners to receive truthful information from licensed contractors about damage homeowners may have to their property, and a thinly veiled attempt to prevent homeowners from making valid claims to repair and rebuild their homes,” the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment states.
The new law, which took effect in July, also puts in place other reforms to crack down on what supporters say are property insurance abuses, including limitations on when attorney fee reimbursements are issued in such civil cases. Such reforms are needed to reduce insurers’ claim costs and put downward pressure on property insurance rates, supporters say.
Sen. Boyd has said he would file a bill containing additional property insurance reforms.
“Sen. Boyd … respects and appreciates the right to free speech,” his legislative assistant, Jack Rogers, told the Florida Record in an email. “He also believes there should be a way we can prohibit fraudulent and unscrupulous solicitation.”
The senator has also expressed support for rethinking insurance replacement costs related to roofing damage due to storms. The current law allows for the full replacement cost of a roof, while reformers have sought to have insurers cover only the depreciated value of relatively new roofs.