An Act to amend and reenact §§ 38.2-1845.1, 38.2-1845.10, 38.2-1845.11, 38.2-1845.12, 38.2-1845.13, 38.2-1845.14, 38.2-1845.16, 38.2-1845.18, 38.2-1845.20, 38.2-1845.21, and 38.2-1845.23 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 4.1 of Chapter 18 of Title 38.2 a section numbered 38.2-1845.24, relating to insurance; standards of conduct for licensed public adjusters; unauthorized practice of public adjusting.
HB437 revises Virginia’s laws governing public adjusters and public adjusting services under Title 38.2. The bill updates key definitions used in the public adjuster article, including “catastrophic disaster,” “home state,” “license,” “negotiate,” “policyholder,” “public adjuster,” “public adjusting,” “public adjusting services,” “soliciting,” and “unauthorized practice of public adjusting.” It also adds a new section, § 38.2-1845.24, to the Code of Virginia, expanding the regulatory framework for conduct by licensed public adjusters and clarifying what activities do and do not count as public adjusting.
Substantively, the bill appears aimed at tightening standards for how public adjusters may solicit, advise, investigate, negotiate, and assist policyholders with first-party property claims. It clarifies that public adjusting is limited to claims involving real or personal property under insurance contracts and excludes liability claims, third-party claims, and uninsured/underinsured bodily injury motor vehicle claims. It also states that a licensed insurance agent who only provides advice on first-party claims tied to policies the agent sold, solicited, or negotiated is not deemed to be engaged in public adjusting. The new unauthorized-practice language reinforces that anyone providing public adjusting services without the required license is acting unlawfully.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize and refine the statutory framework regulating public adjusters in Virginia, likely affecting licensed public adjusters, insurance agents, policyholders, and the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s oversight role. By updating definitions and conduct standards, it gives regulators clearer authority to distinguish lawful public adjusting from unlicensed activity and to enforce licensing requirements more consistently, especially in property-loss and disaster-related claims.
The available legislative record shows no committee transcript excerpts and no recorded votes in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge detailed support or opposition. Based on the enacted chapter text, the overall sentiment appears neutral-to-supportive, with the bill presented as a regulatory clarification rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of recorded dissent in the provided context suggests the measure may have been viewed as a technical or consumer-protection update to insurance regulation.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of activities that constitute “public adjusting,” the line between advice by insurance agents and regulated adjuster conduct, and the enforcement of the new unauthorized-practice provisions. Those issues would matter most to public adjusters, insurance agents, insurers, and policyholders seeking claim assistance after property losses or disasters.
HB437 amends multiple sections of Virginia’s public adjuster statute in Title 38.2 and adds a new section addressing unauthorized practice of public adjusting. The practical effect is to sharpen licensing and conduct rules for public adjusters, define key terms more precisely, and clarify the boundary between lawful advice and regulated public adjusting services. It affects public adjusters, insurance agents, policyholders, and the State Corporation Commission’s regulatory and enforcement authority.
No committee discussion or vote data were provided, so there is no direct record of debate or opposition. The bill was enacted as Chapter 142, which suggests it moved successfully through the process. On its face, the measure appears to have been treated as a technical regulatory update with consumer-protection elements, and the available record indicates a generally neutral-to-supportive posture.
The likely areas of contention are definitional and professional-boundary issues: what counts as “public adjusting,” when an insurance agent’s advice crosses into regulated adjuster activity, and how aggressively the state should police unlicensed claim assistance. Public adjusters may favor clearer standards and enforcement, while insurance agents or others who assist policyholders could be concerned about overbroad application of the licensing rules. Policyholders may be affected indirectly if the rules change who can assist them after a property loss.