When a property claim goes sideways, most owners assume they can bring in help. A contractor to price the repair. An engineer to look at the structure. A public adjuster to handle the claim on their side of the table.
Some policies have been quietly taking that last option away.
Over the past few years, a growing number of property policies — especially in the surplus lines market — have carried endorsements that bar the policyholder from hiring a public adjuster. The language is blunt. One version, quoted in a pending Florida lawsuit, says the named insured “shall not hire, engage, retain, contract with, or otherwise utilize the services of a public adjuster.”
In Massachusetts, that language stops working on November 5.
What the new law says
Chapter 187 of the Acts of 2026 does two things.
First, it makes these clauses unlawful. A new section of the insurance code (G.L. c. 175, § 2C) says no insurer may put language, a form, or an endorsement in a property and casualty policy that prohibits an insured from hiring, retaining, consulting, or contracting with a public adjuster. That applies to admitted carriers and to non-admitted and surplus lines insurers — which is where these endorsements have mostly shown up.
Second, it treats them as an unfair claim practice. The law adds these provisions to the list of unfair claim settlement practices in Chapter 176D. That is the same statute that governs how carriers have to handle claims in Massachusetts, and it is enforced by the Division of Insurance.
What happens to a clause that’s already in your policy
The law says any such language is unenforceable and is cut out of the policy. Everything else in the policy stays in force.
That matters. A carrier can’t argue that one bad endorsement voids the coverage. The clause goes; your coverage stays.
One open question: the statute doesn’t say whether it reaches only policies issued or renewed after November 5, or every policy in force on that date. Expect that to be argued. If you have an older policy with one of these endorsements and a claim in progress, it is worth getting a clear answer before assuming either way.
Massachusetts isn’t alone
On October 21, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into anti–public adjuster endorsements and subpoenaed Velocity Risk Underwriters, an MGA owned by Ryan Specialty. The subpoena asks whether insurers worked together to keep policyholders from using public adjusters. A separate lawsuit by the Florida and national public adjuster associations is pending in Miami-Dade. Velocity says the endorsed policies are surplus lines policies issued to commercial insureds, and that it expects a favorable outcome.
The two states are taking different routes. Massachusetts wrote a statute. Florida is investigating. Both are looking at the same practice.
Why this matters on an ordinary claim
Most claims never get near a courtroom. They are decided in the scope, the estimate, and the back-and-forth that follows. That is the part of the process a public adjuster handles, and it is the part these endorsements were written to keep owners from getting help with.
The carrier has its own adjuster from day one. After November 5, Massachusetts policyholders can’t be contractually blocked from having one of their own.
What to do now
Read your endorsements. Anti-PA clauses tend to sit in the forms list, not the main policy. If you hold a commercial or surplus lines policy, look for language about public adjusters or “claims representatives.”
Don’t assume a clause like this is enforceable. In Massachusetts, from November 5, it isn’t — and how the law treats policies issued before that date is still open.
Bring in help early. The best time to have an advocate on a claim is before the first estimate becomes the anchor for everything after it.
We are public adjusters, not attorneys, and nothing here is legal advice. Summarized from Mass. Acts of 2026, ch. 187 and public reporting; how it applies depends on your policy and the facts of each claim.