HB 1183 and TAPIA: Why Your Roofer Can't Legally Adjust Your Claim in Texas
Texas House Bill 1183 made it illegal for roofing contractors to act as public adjusters on jobs they hope to build. Here's what the law says, why TAPIA and the industry pushed for it, and what it means when you're picking someone to handle your claim.
Almost every Texas homeowner who has had a hailstorm roll through has heard some version of the same pitch at the front door: 'We'll meet the adjuster, we'll handle the whole claim for you, we'll get it all approved — you just pay your deductible.' It sounds like a favor. Since September 1, 2013, a large part of that pitch has also been illegal.
What HB 1183 actually did. House Bill 1183 (83rd Texas Legislature, 2013) was titled 'relating to prohibited conduct by insurance adjusters, public insurance adjusters, and roofing contractors.' It amended the Insurance Code in two places. First, it added Subchapter F to Chapter 4101, and with it Section 4101.251: a company adjuster licensed under Chapter 4101 may not adjust a roofing loss on behalf of an insurer if that adjuster is also a roofing contractor, provides roofing services or products for compensation, or is a controlling person in a roofing-related business. Second, it added Section 4102.163 to the public adjuster chapter: 'A roofing contractor may not act as a public adjuster or advertise to adjust claims for any property for which the contractor is providing or may provide roofing services, regardless of whether the contractor holds a license under this chapter.' The Commissioner of Insurance was directed to adopt rules to enforce both. The bill passed the House 145-2 and the Senate 31-0 — about as close to unanimous as Texas legislation gets.
Read Section 4102.163 carefully, because the important words are 'or may provide.' The prohibition is not limited to a roofer who has already signed a build contract. If the contractor could end up doing the roof, they cannot adjust, negotiate, or advertise adjusting services on that claim. Holding a public adjuster license does not cure it. The statute closes the door on both sides of the same transaction.
Why the legislature drew that line. A public adjuster owes the policyholder a fiduciary duty and is paid a percentage of the settlement under a TDI-regulated contract. A roofing contractor is paid to build the roof. Put those two roles in the same hands and the person telling you what your loss is worth is the same person who profits from how big the scope is and what materials go on the deck. That is a structural conflict — and it is precisely the conflict Section 4102.163 was written to eliminate. The Texas Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (TAPIA), the trade association whose members are licensed Texas PAs and which promotes professional and ethical standards in the field, has consistently backed keeping adjusting and contracting separate, including weighing in as amicus in the later Texas litigation over the same statutes.
The Stonewater sequel. The unlicensed-adjusting rules were tested again a decade later when a roofing company, Stonewater Roofing, sued the Texas Department of Insurance arguing that Chapters 4101 and 4102 were unconstitutionally vague and violated commercial speech rights. Insurer trade groups and the public adjusting community filed amicus briefs defending the statutes and the licensing scheme. The upshot for consumers is unchanged: Texas still requires a license to adjust a claim on your behalf, and still bars the person building your roof from filling that role.
What this means when someone knocks on your door. Ask two questions. First: 'Are you a licensed Texas public insurance adjuster, and what is your license number?' You can verify it directly with the Texas Department of Insurance. Second: 'Will you or any company you're affiliated with be bidding on the repairs?' If the answer to the second question is yes, they cannot legally act as your adjuster on that claim under Section 4102.163 — no matter what the contract in their hand is called.
Watch for the paperwork versions of the same problem. Contingency agreements that let a roofer negotiate 'on your behalf,' assignment-of-benefits forms signed at the kitchen table before anyone has scoped the loss, and 'we'll waive your deductible' offers (a separate violation of Texas Insurance Code Section 27.02) all point in the same direction. Insurance fraud referrals and license revocations in Texas frequently start with exactly these documents.
The honest version of the arrangement. There is nothing wrong with having both a good roofer and a good public adjuster — you should have both. They just need to be two different parties with two different contracts. Your PA prepares the scope, values the loss, and negotiates the settlement. Your contractor builds to that scope. Each is accountable to you separately, and neither one can quietly trade your claim value for their own margin.
Where we stand. Good Faith Claims is a licensed Texas public insurance adjuster and licensed Oklahoma public adjuster. We do not sell roofs, we do not take referral fees from contractors, and we do not bid on the repairs we scope. That separation is not a marketing position — it is what HB 1183 requires, and it is the reason the number we put in front of your carrier is defensible.
If a contractor has already been handling your claim, it is worth having the file reviewed before you sign anything else. Send us the estimate, the carrier's scope, and whatever paperwork you signed, and we'll tell you where you actually stand.