The recent case of Ace Roofing & Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America 1 offers a straightforward but significant holding with broader implications for both contractors and legal practitioners operating in the property insurance claims arena. The court’s decision reiterates a foundational principle that a roofing contractor cannot sue a property insurance carrier without a valid assignment of insurance rights from the policyholder.
The plaintiff, Ace Roofing, attempted to recover $1.2 million in additional compensation for repairs it claimed to have completed, yet the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The court emphasized that Ace Roofing was not a party to the insurance contract, was not a valid assignee, and did not qualify as an intended beneficiary under the policy. Without standing, its claims for breach of contract and statutory bad faith were summarily rejected.
What makes this case particularly interesting is what surfaced in the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert witness. Travelers raised a noteworthy allegation that the plaintiff’s counsel was acting as a public adjusting firm. According to the motion, a representative from the law firm contacted Travelers, purporting to speak and negotiate on behalf of the contractor in a capacity resembling that of a public adjuster. This may be a mere allegation without any truth, but it highlights an emerging trend in property insurance claims.
There has been a discernible increase in law firms establishing public adjusting entities. While such ventures may be technically feasible within the bounds of certain state laws, they raise significant ethical and regulatory concerns. The blurring of lines between advocacy in litigation and claim adjustment in the field can lead to confusion for policyholders and insurers alike, not to mention potential violations of licensing statutes and attorney solicitation. Such dual roles may invite scrutiny from departments of insurance and bar associations. The appearance of this practice in a federal court filing underscores that it is no longer hypothetical.
Ultimately, the Ace Roofing case reinforces the necessity of obtaining a clear, enforceable assignment before attempting to stand in the shoes of an insured. For contractors and their legal representatives, the lesson is simple: absent a valid assignment, courts are unlikely to entertain claims against insurers. But beneath that legal clarity lies a growing murkiness around the role some attorneys are starting to play, and not just in courtrooms.
Thought For The Day
“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
— Potter Stewart
1 Ace Roofing & Construction v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America, No. 1:23-cv-01323 (D. Colo. May 13, 2025).
#Roofers #Valid #Assignments #Growing #Trend #Law #Firms #Establishing #Public #Adjusting #Firms