Суд в Техасе обязал домовладелицу выплатить подрядчику долг в 60 тысяч долларов, отклонив претензии о незаконной деятельности

A Texas homeowner who accused her contractor of acting as an unlicensed public adjuster could not void their contract - and still owes the bill. On August 20, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas affirmed a trial court's finding that a restoration contractor stayed on the right side of the law when it dealt with the homeowner's carrier over storm-damage repairs. The trouble started with winter storm Uri. On February 18, 2021, burst pipes flooded the homeowner's Dallas County house while she was in California. Her Travelers policy covered the water damage, with a dwelling limit of $197,000 and personal property capped at $98,461. She hired the contractor, and its crew arrived the next day to pull water off the property. On March 4, 2021, she signed an "Emergency Work Agreement & Authorization." It let the contractor "perform certain work and/or make repairs" and made her "solely responsible for payment of the total cost." If insurance fell short, she "unconditionally and irrevocably" guaranteed to pay the balance on demand. A week later she signed a third-party form letting the contractor contact Travelers "to request inspections, claim status information and updates." As damage surfaced, the repair estimate climbed - one version reached $166,300.36 - and Travelers denied many line items. The homeowner paid weekly, covering $72,724.59, before telling the contractor to stand down in September 2021. She then brought in a public adjuster and a second builder. When the contractor billed the balance, she sued, arguing it had acted as a public insurance adjuster without a license under Section 4102.051 of the Texas Insurance Code - which, she said, let her void the deal. The statute bars anyone from acting as a public adjuster without a license, meaning a person who "acts on behalf of an insured in negotiating for or effecting the settlement of a claim or claims." The court drew the line plainly. A contractor may discuss damage, repair scope, and cost with an insurer, it said, but may not advocate for the consumer or discuss the policy's coverages and exclusions. The agreement did neither: it did not tie the final price to what Travelers approved, and it did not let the contractor settle anything. An expert witness, a licensed public adjuster, testified the contractor only discussed scope and line items - conduct the code allows. The trial court believed him, and the appeals court left that finding in place. The contractor did not get everything it wanted, either: it lost a bid to reopen the case and prove up $195,966.13 in legal fees, which it had raised only after judgment. The homeowner was left owing the contractor $60,709.69.