Yes, it's against the rules. The court said that while it's fine for adjusters to do things like calculate the cost of damage and negotiate that price, it's not okay for them to give legal advice. ICC crossed the line when it explained what the policy meant about the guns and argued with the insurance company about that coverage. That's a lawyer's job, and it's meant to protect people from getting bad legal advice from someone without a law degree.

No, it shouldn't be against the rules. The dissenting judge argued that adjusters are experts in insurance claims. It doesn't make sense to tell them they can't use their expertise to help clients understand their policy or argue about coverage. That's the main reason people hire them. As long as a real lawyer isn't involved yet, adjusters should be able to do their full job.

Insurance adjusters are allowed to help figure out how much damage was done and what repairs cost, because that doesn't require them to be lawyers. But they can't explain insurance policies to clients, give advice on accepting settlements, argue about what's covered, or advertise themselves as giving legal help, because those things do need legal skills. The court has to make sure regular people are protected from getting bad legal advice from non-lawyers. In this case, ICC did some things only lawyers should do, like telling the Linders what their policy covers and arguing with the insurance company about paying for the guns. Even though ICC did some lawyer stuff they shouldn't have, their whole contract with the Linders isn't automatically invalid. A lower court still has to figure out how much ICC should be paid for the allowed parts of their work. The big court also said people can't personally sue adjusters just for acting like lawyers when they aren't.

I agree that the contract stands and no one can sue adjusters just for giving advice, but I disagree with the strict rule that stops adjusters from helping explain insurance policies. I think they should be allowed to help homeowners understand their claim and settlement options because their special know-how is important for making complicated insurance matters clearer. This is different from the majority’s view, which is much more strict.

The Court's duty to regulate the practice of law and the legal profession "is to protect the public from the potentially severe economic and emotional consequences which may flow from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law."

—of appeals determined that there was no private right of action for UPL, and therefore, held that the trial court properly dismissed the case.

In Hambrick, the plaintiffs brought several causes of action, including an unjust enrichment claim, against GMAC after GMAC allegedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in preparing loan documents for the plaintiffs.

We find any advice Bufkin gave H&H regarding potential adverse claims constituted the practice of law.

The supreme court found that public insurance adjusting did not, per se, constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

We adopt that reasoning and hold there is no private right of action in South Carolina for the unauthorized practice of law.

—holding "adjusters shall not...[a] dvise clients of their rights, duties, or privileges under an insurance policy regarding matters requiring legal skill or knowledge, ie, interpret the policy for clients

—which denied an insurance adjuster compensation for the value of his work that was attributed to the unauthorized practice of law

Additionally, the Linders filed a declaratory judgment action in the South Carolina Supreme Court seeking a judicial determination that ICC's acts constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

This is the type of strategic activity which the Supreme Court referred to in Linder as entailing "specialized legal knowledge and ability."

Yes, a public adjuster engages in the unauthorized practice of law by interpreting policy provisions and negotiating coverage disputes. While the business of public adjusting itself is not the unauthorized practice of law, specific activities that require legal skill and knowledge are prohibited. The court reasoned that activities like valuing property damage, preparing inventories, and negotiating those valuations are permissible as they do not require specialized legal knowledge. However, interpreting policy language to advise a client on coverage and negotiating with an insurer over a coverage dispute, as ICC did regarding the gun collection, crosses the line into the practice of law because it entails counsel on legal rights under a contract. The court's duty is to protect the public from inaccurate legal advice from untrained individuals, necessitating a clear line between appraisal work and legal counsel.

No, a licensed public adjuster should not be found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law for these actions. Public adjusters are hired for their specialized expertise in handling insurance claims, which necessarily includes interpreting the insurance contract, negotiating coverage disputes, and advising on settlement offers. Prohibiting them from using this expertise undermines the very purpose for which they are retained. The dissent argues that just as CPAs are permitted to practice in their area of expertise without it being considered the practice of law, public adjusters should be allowed to perform these core functions of their profession, only refraining from giving advice once an attorney becomes involved for the insurer or litigation begins.

The business of public insurance adjusting does not inherently constitute the unauthorized practice of law when limited to valuations of property and repairs, because these activities do not require legal skill and knowledge. However, public adjusters must not interpret insurance policies for clients, advise on settlement offers, become involved in coverage disputes, or use advertising suggesting legal services, as these activities do require legal expertise. The Court emphasized its duty to regulate the practice of law to protect the public from the consequences of inaccurate legal advice by untrained individuals. In this case, respondents ICC and its employees did engage in unauthorized practice of law by advising the Linders on policy coverage and negotiating a known coverage dispute regarding Mr. Linder's gun collection. While much of ICC's work was permissible, such as documenting damages and negotiating repair costs, their involvement in interpreting the policy and a coverage dispute crossed the line into practicing law. The contract between the Linders and ICC is not void as a matter of law, but the trial court must determine the value of ICC's authorized work and limit their compensation to that amount. Finally, the Court held that there is no private right of action for unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina, aligning with the reasoning in similar cases.

I concur with the majority’s holding that the contract between the Linders and ICC is not void and that no private action exists for unauthorized practice of law; however, I dissent from the majority regarding the limitations imposed on licensed public adjusters. I would permit public adjusters to provide interpretative guidance on insurance policies and to assist in negotiating settlement offers because their specialized expertise is essential in ensuring that insured clients fully understand and effectively pursue their claims. This divergence is based on the belief that denying such critical expertise unnecessarily hampers consumer protection, a view that contrasts with the majority’s more restrictive interpretation.

Linder v. Insurance Claims Consultants, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot