Lawsuits discussing the role of public adjusters are rare.  When they happen they do make an impact.  Perhaps the biggest legal dispute facing adjusters in some years took place challenging Florida Statute 626.854(6) which wrongly banned all solicitation for 48 hours following a catastrophe.  In December of 2010, The First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee, Fla. struck down that law, as a violation of the Florida Constitution. The Appeals Court found in favor of free speech and against this weapon designed by the insurance lobby:

"We reject the argument of the Department of Financial Services, appellee, accepted by the trial court, that the statute is ambiguous and, as a result, the agency’s interpretation that the statute constitutionally regulates only the time, place, and manner of commercial solicitation should be accepted. We hold that the statute unambiguously bans all solicitation for 48 hours and that this restriction on commercial speech violates Article I, § 4 of the Florida Constitution under the standards of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)."

The Court also was persuaded that: "...the Department has failed to prove that section 626.854(6) is narrowly tailored to meet the state’s objectives". “While a statute regulating commercial speech need not be the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s asserted goal objective, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Cronin, 774 So. 2d at 875. The Department has not demonstrated that prohibiting property owners from receiving any information from public adjusters for a period of 48 hours is justified by the possibility that some public adjuster may unduly pressure traumatized victims or otherwise engage in unethical or unprofessional behavior. Nor has the Department demonstrated that the other provisions of section 626.854 and the Rules of Professional Conduct and Ethics governing the Florida Association of Public Insurance Adjusters governing public adjusters are insufficient to regulate unduly coercive or misleading solicitation by public adjusters.”

The Florida Appeals Court relied on United States Supreme Court precedents: We reject the contention of amicus curiae that, even if the statute is construed as a prophylactic ban on all solicitation, it is constitutional under the rational employed in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 449 (1978) (holding that state “may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the state has a right to prevent.”).

We reject the Board’s argument and hold that, as applied in this context, the solicitation ban cannot be justified as a prophylactic rule. Ohralik does not stand for the proposition that blanket bans on personal solicitation by all types of professionals are constitutional in all circumstances. Because “the distinctions, historical and functional, between professions, may require consideration of quite different factors,” …the constitutionality of a ban on personal solicitation will depend upon the identity of the parties and the precise circumstances of the solicitation. Later cases have made this clear, explaining that Ohralik’s holding was narrow and depended upon certain “unique features of in-person solicitation by lawyers” that were present in the circumstances of that case.

The Court also recognized value of public adjusters stated, "At trial, Kortum introduced testimony that the first 48 hours after a claim inducing event are critical because an uninformed policyholder can make decisions that would substantially diminish recovery under the insurance policy by failing to preserve evidence, by failing to find damaged property, and by overspending on mitigation or restoration efforts."

Plainly the law was supported by the insurance lobby to increase their profits by paying less to policyholders who settle early on the cheap.  This law is a victory for property owners and free speech.