Opinion ID: 1262059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts of the Underlying Lawsuit

Text: Petitioners (the Linders) suffered property loss due to a fire at their home in February 1996. While their claim was being adjusted by the insurance company, the Linders had many concerns about how the repairs to their home were being handled. One of the repairmen recommended respondent Insurance Claims Consultants, Inc. (ICC) to Mrs. Linder. Mrs. Linder called ICC and met with respondent Gerald Moore. [2] In that initial meeting with Moore, the Linders discussed the fact that the insurance company had rejected their claim for the full value of Mr. Linder's gun collection. According to Mrs. Linder, Moore advised them the guns should be covered under their policy. Moore indicated that he advised the Linders to read their insurance policy and that he and Mr. Linder read the policy together. Respondent Jeffrey Raines states in an affidavit that they were successful in obtaining payment for Mr. Linder's guns which was originally and erroneously denied by the company. The Linders entered into a contract with ICC and agreed to pay ICC 10% of the total amount adjusted or otherwise recovered. In addition, they executed a Notice to their insurance company which indicated that ICC had been hired for the preparation of their claim and that ICC should be contacted for any further information and negotiations concerning their claim. After executing the contract with ICC, the Linders released the lawyer they had retained a couple of weeks before contacting ICC. ICC communicated directly with the insurance company's adjuster both orally and in writing, as well as with the insurance company's attorney. The majority of the communications reflect that the adjusters concentrated on cost-related issues, such as completing the contents inventory and the sworn statement of proof of loss, as well as discussions on the extent and amount of repairs. Indeed, Raines stated that ICC spent over 300 man hours preparing the detailed inventory of the damaged household contents. According to Raines, ICC was able to obtain an almost $12,000 increase in what the insurance company originally agreed to cover. The Linders approved the claim, but the insurance company delayed payment. Raines stated that he then recommended to Mrs. Linder that she get an attorney. When the attorney settled the claim, the Linders executed a release of all claims. On a fact sheet given to Mrs. Linder by Moore, ICC describes itself as a professional Loss Consulting Firm which represents a client's best interest while handling a property damage claim. The fact sheet states that ICC will provide, inter alia: an assessment of property loss; a leading law firm to review the insurance policy (at ICC's expense); a complete inventory of damaged contents; engineers, architects, accountants, etc., if required (at ICC's expense); all required documentation to properly project and substantiate additional living expenses and/or business interruption; and assistance in the preparation with the timely filing of the sworn statement of proof of loss. ICC stated that its main goal is to provide the client with an initial comprehensive study of the loss and damages. Finally, the following was printed at the bottom of the fact sheet: REMEMBER, your insurance company has already appointed a professional to protect THEIR interest. ICC WILL PROTECT YOURS! ICC states it no longer utilizes this exact fact sheet and has not used it for years, although it is not disputed that it was given to the Linders in 1996. [3] The Linders also presented an envelope showing an ICC logoa large I with two smaller Cs underneath; the logo represents scales, and the Linders suggest that it is supposed to be the scales of justice. Respondents allege that the logo was designed to suggest an appropriate balancing between the insured and the insurance company. The Linders did not pay ICC the 10% fee, as they had agreed in the contract. ICC brought suit against the Linders for the recovery of this contingency fee. The Linders answered the complaint, asserting, inter alia, that respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and therefore the contract between them is void ab initio. In an amended answer, the Linders added counterclaims for negligence and breach of contract. The Linders then also attempted to assert a claim for unfair trade practices and sought to have a class certified to get relief for respondents' alleged unauthorized practice of law. At that point, the circuit court denied the Linders' request to amend their answer and stayed the action to allow them to seek declaratory relief in the original jurisdiction of this Court. In their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, the Linders allege that: (1) ICC solicited and advertised itself as a corporation providing services that are recognized as being the practice of law; (2) Moore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by advising the Linders regarding the language and interpretation of their policy; and (3) Raines engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by negotiating on behalf of the Linders. The Linders ask the Court to: (1) declare these practices the unauthorized practice of law; (2) declare the contract between the Linders and ICC void; and (3) acknowledge a private right of action for matters declared by this Court to be the unauthorized practice of law.