IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 18–1354

Filed February 14, 2020

33 CARPENTERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE FARM LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. 

Latham II, Judge.

Residential contractor lacking public adjuster license appeals 

summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim against 

homeowners’ insurer. AFFIRMED. 

Edward F. Noethe, Kyle J. McGinn, and Emily A. Weiss (until 

withdrawal) of McGinn, Springer & Noethe PLC, Council Bluffs, for 

appellant. 

Brenda K. Wallrichs and Mark J. Parmenter of Lederer Weston Craig 

PLC, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. 
2

WATERMAN, Justice.

This appeal is one of three1 we decide today concerning whether a 

residential contractor acting as an unlicensed public adjuster can enforce 

its postloss contractual assignment of insurance benefits against the

homeowners’ insurer. A controlling statute, Iowa Code section 103A.71(5) 

(2016), declares “void” contracts entered into by residential contractors 

who perform public adjuster services without the license required under 

section 522C.4. Those laws were enacted to protect homeowners and 

insurers against exploitation by unlicensed contractors after hailstorms, 

tornadoes, and other natural disasters. 

The plaintiff-contractor in this case represented the homeowners as 

an assignee of their insurance claim for hail damage. The defendantinsurer paid what it determined was owed, and the plaintiff-contractor

sued for much more. The district court granted the defendant-insurer’s 

motion for summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff-contractor’s 

contractual assignment was unenforceable. We retained the plaintiffcontractor’s appeal. 

On our review, we apply section 103A.71(5) to hold the assignment 

contract void. We reject the plaintiff’s argument that courts must honor 

these “void” contracts unless specifically directed otherwise by the Iowa 

Insurance Commissioner. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the 

summary judgment. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings. 

On March 15, 2016, a hailstorm struck Bettendorf and damaged the 

roof and siding of a home owned by Brant and Sarah Clausen. The 

 1The related cases filed today are 33 Carpenters Construction, Inc. v. Cincinnati 

Insurance, No. 17–1979, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2020), and 33 Carpenters Construction, Inc. 

v. IMT Insurance, No. 19–0678, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2020). 
3

Clausens initially were unaware of any storm damage to their property. 

Their home was insured through State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 

(State Farm). On June 29, Matt Shepherd, an employee of 33 Carpenters 

Construction, Inc. (33 Carpenters), approached the Clausens at their 

home and asked if he could inspect their roof for hail damage. The 

Clausens agreed to permit his inspection. Shepherd found hail damage to 

the roof and siding, which was news to the Clausens. 

Shepherd presented, and the parties signed, two documents, labeled 

“Agreement” and “Insurance Contingency,” whereby 33 Carpenters agreed 

to repair the storm damage in exchange for the Clausens’ insurance 

proceeds. The documents also purportedly authorized 33 Carpenters to 

act on behalf of the Clausens regarding the submission, adjustment, and 

payment of an insurance claim for the hail damage to their roof. 

Insurance/Mortgage Company Authorization: I 

authorize and direct my insurers and mortgagees to 

communicate directly with 33 Carpenters Construction to 

include discussions regarding scope of work and payment. I 

also authorize and direct my insurers and Mortgagees to 

include 33 Carpenters Construction as a joint payee on all 

checks.

The Insurance Contingency authorized 33 Carpenters to “meet with and 

discuss hail and wind damage” of the Clausen property with their 

insurance company, State Farm, and it required the Clausens to 

acknowledge that “33 Carpenters Construction will act as their General 

Contractor to obtain appropriate property damage adjustments.” 

That same day, the Clausens made a property damage claim to State 

Farm. About two weeks later, State Farm representatives visited the 

Clausen home to inspect the storm damage. Shepherd attended the 

inspection without the Clausens. After this meeting, State Farm 

formulated an initial estimate calculating the replacement cost value, or 
4

total repair costs, of $30,607. After subtracting depreciation and the 

Clausens’ deductible, State Farm paid the Clausens $22,198. The 

Clausens transferred this payment to 33 Carpenters, and it began

repairing the roof and siding. 

Subsequently, 33 Carpenters prepared an undated2 “Supplement” 

to the insurance claim, claiming $15,087 in additional repair costs, $645 

in tax, and $9137 in overhead and profit for a new claim of $24,869 above

State Farm’s initial determination of the total repair cost, amounting to an 

increase of 81.3%. State Farm’s adjuster returned to the Clausen home 

to assess the new claims. 

On February 22, 2017, the Clausens signed another document that 

purportedly assigned their insurance claim with State Farm to 

33 Carpenters. This “Assignment of Claim and Benefits” stated, 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Assignor [Brant Clausen] 

hereby sells and transfers to the Assignee [33 Carpenters] and 

its successors, assigns and personal representatives, any and 

all claims, payment drafts, demands, and cause or causes of 

action of any kind whatsoever which the Assignee [33 

Carpenters] has or may have against State Farm (insurance 

company), arising from the following claim [for hail and wind 

damage.]

This document further stated that “all future payments or settlements for 

the above referenced claim” should be made directly to 33 Carpenters. 

On March 10, 33 Carpenters filed this civil action against State 

Farm. 33 Carpenters alleged that it is the assignee of the Clausens’ rights 

and that State Farm had breached its insurance policy by failing to pay 

33 Carpenters “all benefits due and owing under the policy.” State Farm 

filed an answer denying those allegations. 

 233 Carpenters asserted in its brief that the Supplement was prepared before the 

February 22 assignment. 
5

Later that month, State Farm prepared a substituted estimate in 

response to the 33 Carpenters Supplement. The substituted estimate 

increased the replacement cost value to $40,953 to reflect the need to 

replace all of the siding on the Clausen home since the original siding 

became unavailable during the interim between the initial estimate and 

the repair work. In recognition of this increase, State Farm paid an

additional $15,681 directly to 33 Carpenters and the Clausens’ mortgage 

company, and 33 Carpenters deposited the payment. 

Next, on August 21, after State Farm had made the second payment 

and after 33 Carpenters had completed the repairs, 33 Carpenters 

submitted yet another cost estimate, claiming $64,973 for the cost of 

repairs and $12,994 in overhead and profit, increasing the total claim to

$77,968, a 90.4% increase from State Farm’s substituted estimate of the 

total replacement cost value. State Farm refused to pay the additional 

sums. Two months later, 33 Carpenters filed a motion to compel appraisal 

of the loss. The district court denied the motion. 

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment on May 15, 2018, 

claiming that the contract between 33 Carpenters and the Clausens was 

unenforceable because 33 Carpenters was not a licensed public adjuster,

as required under Iowa Code chapter 522C. State Farm supported its 

motion with the contractual documents and other evidence showing that 

33 Carpenters acted as a public adjuster for the Clausens. The summary 

judgment record included a printout of 33 Carpenters’ public webpage that 

outlined its six-step process for a common insurance claim:

STEP 1

Contact 33 Carpenters Construction 

(http://33carpentersconstruction.com/contact) for a free 

comprehensive storm damage evaluation and assessment.

[phone numbers of the various 33 Carpenters locations]
6

STEP 2

Contact your insurance company to file a claim.

Inform your insurance company that your home was impacted 

by recent severe storms and your home was inspected by a 

licensed general contractor and areas of your home are 

damaged.

STEP 3

Inform us when the insurance adjuster will be coming out 

to assess the damage on your home or property.

We will meet personally with your insurance adjuster, as an 

ADVOCATE on YOUR behalf, and discuss the work that needs 

to be completed to repair your home to its original beauty and 

value. Your insurance adjuster will submit a report that will 

list the work that needs to be completed and a copy will be 

sent to you.

STEP 4

Send us a copy of the summary report put together by 

your insurance company.

Included in the summary report will be the itemized costs of 

the work that needs to be performed. We will work directly 

with your insurance company to ensure that all damaged 

areas of your home will be included on the report.

STEP 5

We will meet with you to make product selections.

Our entire team has a vast and comprehensive knowledge 

about all home exterior products and we are happy to help 

you in the decision making process regarding product 

selection and color options. We will work with your schedule 

to determine the best day to start the necessary repairs to 

your home. 

STEP 6

Payment.

We will provide you and your insurance company with a copy 

of the invoice when the work is completed. You may be 

required to get your mortgage company to endorse the check 

from the insurance company before payment can be 

submitted to us for the work completed to your home. You 

are only responsible for your insurance deductible and any 

agreed upon upgrades. 

33 Carpenters resisted summary judgment by arguing that the Iowa 

Insurance Commissioner has the sole authority to enforce the provisions 

of Iowa Code chapter 522C such that State Farm cannot use the statute 

to invalidate the assignment agreement. Alternatively, 33 Carpenters 

argued its conduct did not violate Iowa Code chapter 522C or 507A. 

33 Carpenters asserted that the only relevant event before the February 22
7

assignment was the evaluation of the claim attended by State Farm 

representatives and Shepherd, and it stated this was not improper because 

Shepherd did not negotiate or advocate for the Clausens during that

meeting. The other events, 33 Carpenters claimed, occurred after the 

Clausens assigned the claim to 33 Carpenters, which it stated it wholly 

owned and could negotiate without a public adjuster license. 

The district court granted the motion for summary judgment, ruling

that the Clausens’ assignment of their claim to 33 Carpenters was invalid

under Iowa law because 33 Carpenters acted as an unlicensed public 

adjuster as defined in Iowa Code section 522C.2. The district court 

considered the undisputed facts that the Clausens were unaware of any 

storm damage and had made no insurance claim before they were

approached by 33 Carpenters, their agreement authorized 33 Carpenters 

to communicate with State Farm, 33 Carpenters’ representative Shepherd 

attended the roof inspection with State Farm without the Clausens, and 

33 Carpenters received the proceeds of the checks State Farm issued to 

the Clausens for the claim. The district court determined that,

by undertaking these actions, 33 Carpenters was acting as a 

public adjuster as defined in Iowa Code section 522C.2. 

33 Carpenters did so without the requisite license. Because 

33 Carpenters was acting as an unlicensed public adjuster 

prior to the assignment, the assignment is invalid under Iowa 

law. 

The district court ruled that 33 Carpenters could not recover from State 

Farm and granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. The 

district court did not reach the question of whether the Iowa Insurance 

Commissioner has the sole authority to enforce the provisions of Iowa Code 

chapter 522C, and 33 Carpenters filed no motion to seek a ruling on that 

issue. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2). 33 Carpenters appealed, and we 

retained the appeal. 
8

II. Standard of Review. 

We review an order granting summary judgment for correction of 

errors at law. City of West Liberty v. Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co., 922 N.W.2d 

876, 879 (Iowa 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving 

party establishes there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A matter can be resolved on summary 

judgment when the dispute is over the legal consequences of undisputed 

facts. Boelman v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 826 N.W.2d 494, 501 (Iowa 

2013). “[W]e examine the record in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party.” Id. 

III. The District Court’s Authority to Adjudicate the Contract’s 

Validity. 

A. Error Preservation. 33 Carpenters argued in district court and 

argues on appeal that the district court erred in applying Iowa Code 

section 522C.4 to invalidate the assignment because the Iowa Insurance 

Commissioner has the sole authority to enforce that statute. State Farm 

responds that 33 Carpenters failed to preserve error on this issue because

the district court never ruled on it and 33 Carpenters did not move under 

Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) for an amended judgment deciding 

that issue.

“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must 

ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will 

decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 

2002). To preserve error for appeal after the district court fails to rule on 

the party’s properly raised issue, the party must file a motion requesting 

a ruling. Id. The party must “call to the attention of the district court its 

failure to decide the issue.” Id. at 540. 
9

The claim or issue raised does not actually need to be used as 

the basis for the decision to be preserved, but the record must 

at least reveal the court was aware of the claim or issue and 

litigated it. 

Id.

We routinely hold that when an issue is raised in a motion but not

decided in the district court ruling, the issue is not preserved for review. 

See, e.g., UE Local 893/IUP v. State, 928 N.W.2d 51, 61 (Iowa 2019) 

(holding that error was not preserved on a ground raised in a motion to 

dismiss that the court denied on other grounds, and the party failed to 

raise the issue again in district court); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte, 843 

N.W.2d 876, 884 (Iowa 2014) (holding that error was not preserved for 

appellate review when the district court did not address the issue in its 

ruling and the parties failed to file a rule 1.904 motion on the issue); Meier, 

641 N.W.2d at 540–41 (holding that the issue raised as one of two grounds 

in a motion to dismiss was not preserved for appellate review when the 

district court denied the motion on the other ground alone). In Meier, we 

determined that the issue raised in a motion to dismiss was waived when 

it was not decided in the district court ruling and the party did not file a 

motion requesting a ruling or do anything to call the district court’s 

attention to the unaddressed issue. Id. at 540–41. 33 Carpenters 

arguably should meet the same fate for the same reason. 

The district court granted summary judgment without expressly 

deciding whether the Iowa Insurance Commissioner has the sole authority 

to enforce Iowa Code chapter 522C. 33 Carpenters never filed a rule 

1.904(2) motion requesting a ruling on that issue. We are a court of 

review, and we do not generally decide an issue that the district court did 

not decide first. UE Local 893/IUP, 928 N.W.2d at 60. But the district 

court must have implicitly rejected the argument when it granted summary 
10

judgment based on Iowa Code chapter 522C. See Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 

539 (“[W]e assume the district court rejected each defense to a claim on its 

merits, even though the district court did not address each defense in its 

ruling.”). This is a recurring issue, and this argument was rejected by the 

district court and court of appeals in a companion case, 33 Carpenters v. 

Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. 17–1979, 2019 WL 478254, at *5 (Iowa 

Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019). We assume without deciding that error was 

minimally preserved here and elect to reach the merits in this opinion. 

B. The District Court’s Power to Declare the Contract Void. 

33 Carpenters filed this civil action, and State Farm raised the defense 

that 33 Carpenters’ assignment contract is void under Iowa Code chapter 

522C. We have never held that Iowa courts lack the authority to 

adjudicate contractual assignments of insurance claims. To the contrary,

“Iowa courts routinely adjudicate contract-formation and contractenforcement issues.” UE Local 893/IUP, 928 N.W.2d at 64. That case is 

instructive. There, we rejected a similar argument that the agency charged 

with enforcing a regulatory statute had primary jurisdiction over a contract 

enforcement action. Id. at 65. We noted that the agency had various 

enforcement powers, including imposing monetary penalties for violations, 

but the agency lacked statutory authorization to enforce the contract or 

declare the contract void. Id. Accordingly, we held the district court had 

the power to adjudicate the contract dispute without any requirement that 

the parties first exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 65–66. Similarly, 

the insurance commissioner has the authority to impose penalties on a 

person acting as a public adjuster without a license, but nothing in the 

chapter authorizes the insurance commissioner to enforce contractual 

assignments or declare such contracts void. See Iowa Code ch. 522C; Iowa 

Code § 522C.6. We hold that the district court had the authority to 
11

adjudicate the validity of 33 Carpenters’ contractual assignment claims. 

See also Bank of the W. v. Kline, 782 N.W.2d 453, 462 (Iowa 2010) (“It is 

well-established Iowa law that contracts made in contravention of a statute 

are void, and Iowa courts will not enforce such contracts.”). 

IV. The Invalidity of the Contract.

We must decide whether the district court erred by granting State 

Farm’s motion for summary judgment. We conclude that undisputed facts 

establish that 33 Carpenters, a residential contractor, was acting as an 

unlicensed public adjuster representing the Clausens on their hail damage 

claim against State Farm. 33 Carpenters’ contractual assignment is 

therefore void under Iowa Code section 103A.71(5), and State Farm was 

entitled to summary judgment.3 

Our analysis turns on two statutes the Iowa legislature enacted in 

2007 and 2012—Iowa Code chapter 522C, governing licensing of public 

adjusters, and Iowa Code section 103A.71, governing residential 

contractors. See 2007 Iowa Acts ch. 137, § 24–29 (codified at Iowa Code 

ch. 522C (Supp. 2007)); 2012 Iowa Acts ch. 1116, § 1 (codified at Iowa 

Code § 103A.71 (2013)). We begin with an overview of this legislation. 

 3The Iowa legislature recently enacted the Insured Homeowner’s Protection Act, 

which now voids postloss assignment contracts between an insured and a residential 

contractor unless specified conditions are met. 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 49, § 1 (codified at 

Iowa Code § 515.137A(3), (5)(a) (2019)). This enactment became effective July 1, 2019. 

Id. State Farm does not argue this new legislation applies retroactively, and we conclude 

the enactment is inapplicable to the 2016 transactions at issue in this appeal. 

Other states have recently enacted similar statutes regulating the insureds’ 

postloss assignments to residential contractors of rights or benefits under homeowners 

insurance policies. See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-8605 (West, Westlaw current 

through 1st Reg. Sess. 106th Leg. (2019)); N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 26.1-39.2-04 (West, 

Westlaw current through Jan. 1, 2020); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 627.7153 (West, 

Westlaw current through 2019 1st Reg. Sess.) (allowing insurers to restrict the ability of 

an insured to execute an assignment contract in its policies if certain enumerated 

conditions are met). 
12

Iowa is one of forty-five states with statutes requiring licensure of 

public adjusters. See Thomson Reuters, Public Adjusters: Licensing and 

Education Requirements, 0110 Surveys 78 (Dec. 2018). The goal of the 

licensing statutes is to “curtail unethical and abusive practices” by public 

adjusters who “present[] danger to the public by ‘chasing fires’ and 

soliciting clients under conditions of duress.” Bldg. Permit Consultants, 

Inc. v. Mazur, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 562, 570 (Ct. App. 2004). The unethical 

practices include “price gouging[,] . . . collusion[,] . . . high-pressure sales 

tactics, fraud, and incompetence.” Id. at 571. Homeowners and their 

insurers are especially vulnerable to exploitation “in the wake of 

earthquakes, fires, floods, and similar catastrophes.” Id. A recent report 

by the Insurance Information Institute concluded, 

In Florida, abuse of [assignment of benefits contracts (AOBs)]

has fueled an insurance crisis. The state’s legal environment 

has encouraged vendors and their attorneys to solicit 

unwarranted AOBs from tens of thousands of Floridians, 

conduct unnecessary or unnecessarily expensive work, then 

file tens of thousands of lawsuits against insurance 

companies that deny or dispute the claims. This miniindustry has cost consumers billions of dollars as they are 

forced to pay higher premiums to cover needless repairs and 

excessive legal fees. And consumers often do not even know 

that their claims are driving these cost increases. 

The abuse therefore acts somewhat like a hidden tax on 

consumers, helping to increase what are already some of the 

highest insurance premiums in the country. 

James Lynch & Lucian McMahon, Ins. Info. Inst., Florida’s Assignment of

Benefits Crisis: Runaway Litigation Is Spreading, and Consumers Are 

Paying the Price 2 (March 2019). 

State Farm argues such abuse is present here. After receiving the 

initial insurance payment for the repairs, 33 Carpenters prepared a 

supplement with an 81.3% increase in the total repair cost. Due to delays 

attributable to 33 Carpenters, all siding required replacement because 
13

matching materials were no longer available. To reflect that, State Farm 

responded with its own substituted estimate and paid an additional sum 

to 33 Carpenters. Then, 33 Carpenters prepared yet another cost estimate 

for a 90.4% increase from State Farm’s substituted estimate. State Farm 

refused to pay any additional sums. 

The Iowa legislature specifically chose to regulate contracts “to 

repair damage [to homes] resulting from a naturally occurring catastrophe 

including but not limited to a fire, earthquake, tornado, windstorm, flood 

or hail storm.” Iowa Code § 103A.71(4)(a) (2016). The Iowa Insurance 

Division has determined that requiring public adjusters to be licensed is 

in the public interest, necessary for the protection of policyholders, and 

consistent with the purposes of Iowa Code chapter 507A. See In re Glaze 

Roofing & Remodeling, Iowa Sec. Bureau Ins. Div., 2010 WL 2324606, at 

*2 (June 1, 2010). Iowa Code chapter 522C’s purpose is “to govern the 

qualifications and procedures for licensing public adjusters in this state, 

and to specify the duties of and restrictions on public adjusters, including 

limitation of such licensure to assisting insureds only with first-party 

claims.” Iowa Code § 522C.1. 

Other courts have held that contracts entered into by an unlicensed 

public adjuster are void. See, e.g., Zarrell v. Herb Gutenplan Assocs., Inc., 

444 N.Y.S.2d 39, 40 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (“Section 123 of the Insurance Law 

provides that no person shall act as an adjustor (independent or public) 

unless licensed by the Superintendent of Insurance. . . . Accordingly, the 

court declares that . . . the plain language of Sec. 123 prohibits the 

defendant’s entitlement to a fee for adjusting a burglary loss . . . .”); 

James R. Beneke, Inc. v. Aon Risk Servs., Inc. of Ga., A-05-CA-927 RP, 2007 

WL 9701564, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2007) (“Because Jim Beneke was 

not licensed in Florida at the time of the solicitation, his conduct was 
14

clearly prohibited under Florida law. The undersigned thus concludes the 

Agreement was void ab initio as violative of Florida law.” (Footnote 

omitted.)); Lon Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Key, 527 S.W.3d 604, 618, 619 (Tex. 

App. 2017) (refusing to enforce an unlicensed public adjuster’s contract 

because “a contract to fulfill an obligation that cannot be performed 

without violating the law contravenes public policy and is void”). 

Against this backdrop, we turn to the operative statutory language. 

Subchapter V of the state building code, Iowa Code chapter 103A, is 

entitled, “Residential Contractors—Repairs and Insurance—Prohibited 

Practices.” A “residential contractor” is defined as 

a person in the business of contracting to repair or replace 

residential roof systems or perform any other exterior repair, 

exterior replacement, or exterior reconstruction work 

resulting from a catastrophe on residential real estate or a 

person offering to contract with an owner or possessor of real 

estate to carry out such work. 

Iowa Code § 103A.71(1)(b). “A contract entered into with a residential 

contractor is void if the residential contractor violates subsection 2, 3, or 

4.” Id. § 103A.71(5). 

Section 103A.71(3) declares that 

[a] residential contractor shall not represent or negotiate on 

behalf of, or offer or advertise to represent or negotiate on 

behalf of, an owner or possessor of residential real estate on 

any insurance claim in connection with the repair or 

replacement of roof systems, or the performance of any other 

exterior repair, exterior replacement, or exterior 

reconstruction work on the residential real estate. 

Id. § 103A.71(3). Violating section 103A.71(3) subjects the violator “to the 

penalties and remedies prescribed by this chapter” and amounts to “an 

unlawful practice pursuant to section 714.16.” Id. § 103A.71(6)(a)–(b). 

A “public adjuster” is defined in Iowa Code section 522C.2(7) as

any person who for compensation or any other thing of value 

acts on behalf of an insured by doing any of the following:
15

a. Acting for or aiding an insured in negotiating for or 

effecting the settlement of a first-party claim for loss or 

damage to real or personal property of the insured. 

b. Advertising for employment as a public adjuster of 

first-party insurance claims or otherwise soliciting business 

or representing to the public that the person is a public 

adjuster of first-party insurance claims for loss or damage to 

real or personal property of an insured. 

c. Directly or indirectly soliciting business investigating 

or adjusting losses, or advising an insured about first-party 

claims for loss or damage to real or personal property of the 

insured. 

Id. § 522C.2(7). A “person” can be an individual or business entity. Id.

§ 522C.2(6). Without a license issued by the commissioner in accordance 

with chapter 522C, “[a] person shall not operate as or represent that the 

person is a public adjuster in this state . . . .” Id. § 522C.4. A person 

acting as a public adjuster without a valid license commits a serious 

misdemeanor and is subject to civil penalties. Id. § 522C.6. 

If we compare the language of section 103A.71(3), which lists 

activities that a residential contractor is forbidden from doing, with the 

definition of a public adjuster in section 522C.2(7), it is apparent that 

section 103A.71(3) prohibits residential contractors from acting as public 

adjusters. 

Iowa Code § 103A.71(3).

A residential contractor shall not 

represent or negotiate on behalf of, 

or offer or advertise to represent or 

negotiate on behalf of, an owner or 

possessor of residential real estate 

on any insurance claim in 

connection with the repair or 

replacement of roof systems, or the 

performance of any other exterior 

repair, exterior replacement, or 

exterior reconstruction work on the 

residential real estate. 

Iowa Code § 522C.2(7).

“Public adjuster” means any person 

who for compensation or any other 

thing of value acts on behalf of an 

insured by doing any of the 

following:

 a. Acting for or aiding an 

insured in negotiating for or 

effecting the settlement of a firstparty claim for loss or damage to 

real or personal property of the 

insured. 

 b. Advertising for employment 

as a public adjuster of first-party 

insurance claims or otherwise 

soliciting business or representing 
16

(Emphasis added.) These statutes regulate the same conduct, including

representing or negotiating for the insured on insurance claims for the 

costs to repair storm damage. The conduct prohibited in section 

103A.71(3) governing residential contractors describes what public 

adjusters are licensed to perform pursuant to section 522C.2(7). We 

interpret these provisions together to hold that contracts entered into by a 

residential contractor acting as an unlicensed public adjuster are void

under section 103A.71(5). See Kline, 782 N.W.2d at 462 (collecting cases 

holding courts will not enforce contracts that contravene statutes); Milholin 

v. Vorthies, 320 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Iowa 1982) (en banc) (upholding 

regulatory law invalidating a noncompliant real estate listing agreement).

It is undisputed that neither 33 Carpenters nor its employees held

a public adjuster license. We next address whether 33 Carpenters acted 

as a public adjuster as defined in chapter 522C. Iowa Code section 

522C.2(7) defines a “public adjuster” as a “person who for compensation 

or any other thing of value acts on behalf of an insured by doing any of 

the [three listed actions.]” (Emphasis added.) We consider each 

subsection in turn. 

Section 522C.2(7)(a) states a person is a public adjuster when 

“[a]cting for or aiding an insured in negotiating for or effecting the 

settlement of a first-party claim for loss or damage to real or personal 

to the public that the person is a 

public adjuster of first-party 

insurance claims for loss or 

damage to real or personal 

property of an insured.

 c. Directly or indirectly 

soliciting business investigating or 

adjusting losses, or advising an 

insured about first-party claims for 

loss or damage to real or personal 

property of the insured.
17

(property of the insured.” Iowa Code § 522C.2(7)(a). 33 Carpenters 

representative Shepherd directed the Clausens to file a claim with State 

Farm, which they promptly did that same day, and Shepherd attended the 

inspection of the Clausen property with the State Farm representatives in 

place of the Clausens. Shepherd’s conduct aligned with 33 Carpenters’ 

representations on its website, which advertised to homeowners that it 

would “meet personally with your insurance adjuster, as an ADVOCATE 

on YOUR behalf, and discuss the work that needs to be completed to repair 

your home to its original beauty and value.” Additionally, 33 Carpenters 

submitted the first estimate to State Farm before the Clausens assigned 

their claim. 33 Carpenters thereby acted on behalf of the Clausens in 

negotiating their claim. Altogether, these activities demonstrate that 33 

Carpenters was acting for and aiding the insureds, the Clausens, in 

effecting the settlement of their claim with State Farm for damage to their 

real property within the meaning of section 522C.2(7)(a). 

Section 522C.2(7)(b) states a person is a public adjuster when acting 

on behalf of an insured for a thing of value by 

[a]dvertising for employment as a public adjuster of first-party 

insurance claims or otherwise soliciting business or 

representing to the public that the person is a public adjuster 

of first-party insurance claims for loss or damage to real or 

personal property of an insured. 

Id. § 522C.2(7)(b). Section 522C.2(7)(c) states a person is a public adjuster 

when acting on behalf of an insured for a thing of value by “[d]irectly or 

indirectly soliciting business investigating or adjusting losses, or advising 

an insured about first-party claims for loss or damage to real or personal 

property of the insured.” Id. § 522C.2(7)(c). Shepherd, as 33 Carpenters’

representative, undisputedly approached the Clausens uninvited and 

offered to inspect their home for hail damage, and he directly solicited 
18

business for 33 Carpenters after finding damage on the roof and siding. 

The same day, Shepherd advised the Clausens to file a claim for that 

damage and had them sign documents agreeing to pay 33 Carpenters with 

their insurance proceeds in exchange for the company agreeing to repair 

the storm damage. This constitutes advising an insured about first-party 

claims for damage to the insured’s real property. 33 Carpenters’ six-step 

process on its website additionally exemplifies solicitation of business 

investigating losses and advising insureds regarding claims with promises 

to “ADVOCATE on YOUR behalf” and work directly with the insurance 

company to ensure all damaged areas are included in the report, among 

other things. Such conduct directly aligns with that of a public adjuster 

within the meaning of sections 522C.2(7)(b) and (c). 

Based on the undisputed facts in the summary judgment record, the 

district court correctly ruled that 33 Carpenters acted as an unlicensed 

public adjuster under section 522C.2(7), and the court correctly 

determined that the assignment contract was unenforceable under the 

governing statutes. We hold the assignment contract is void under Iowa 

Code section 103A.71(5). 

This outcome is consistent with our precedent holding contracts 

entered into by parties lacking a required license are void as against public 

policy. See, e.g., Bergantzel v. Mlynarik, 619 N.W.2d 309, 318 (Iowa 2000) 

(en banc) (holding a contract entered into in violation of attorney license 

requirements was unenforceable); Mincks Agri Ctr., Inc. v. Bell Farms, Inc., 

611 N.W.2d 270, 271 (Iowa 2000) (en banc) (holding that contracts entered 

into by unlicensed grain dealer were unenforceable); Keith Furnace Co. v. 

Mac Vicar, 225 Iowa 246, 250, 280 N.W. 496, 498 (1938) (“If a statute or 

city ordinance prohibits the practice of a profession or the carrying on of 

a business without first procuring a license and a fine is imposed for 
19

violating the law, recovery can not be had for services rendered in such 

occupation.”); Hoxsey v. Baker, 216 Iowa 85, 88–89, 246 N.W. 653, 655 

(1933) (stating it is “well settled” that a person cannot recover for services 

performed without a license as required by law); see also Food Mgmt., Inc. 

v. Blue Ribbon Beef Pack, Inc., 413 F.2d 716, 725 (8th Cir. 1969) (applying 

Iowa law to hold contracts entered into in violation of Iowa registration 

requirements are unenforceable); Davis, Brody, Wisniewski v. Barrett, 253 

Iowa 1178, 1181–82, 115 N.W.2d 839, 841 (1962) (“The general rule 

appears to be that a contract made in the course of a business or 

occupation for which a license is required by one who has not complied 

with such requirement is unenforceable where the statute expressly so 

provides, or where it expressly or impliedly, as a police regulation, 

prohibits the conduct of such business without compliance.”). The 

legislature has codified its expression of public policy in Iowa Code section 

103A.71(5), and we rely on that statute to affirm the summary judgment.

IV. Disposition.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s summary 

judgment against 33 Carpenters. 

AFFIRMED.