Service Complete, LLC v. OXL,T LLC

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Service Complete, LLC’s claims against OXL,T LLC for unpaid construction work and compensation for negotiating insurance payments. The court held that Service Complete acted as a public adjuster without the required license and that its agreement violated Georgia statutes governing public adjusters and contractors, rendering the agreement void and unenforceable. The court also rejected arguments concerning waiver, sua sponte consideration of illegality, and the need for a separate public-interest finding.

Holdings

1. An agreement under which a contractor represents an insured in negotiating or effecting settlement of a first-party property-insurance claim, while also providing contracting services for the same property, violates OCGA §§ 33-23-1 (a) (13) (A), 33-23-43.1 (a), and 33-23-43.8 (k), and is void and unenforceable when the contractor lacks the required public-adjuster license.
2. Service Complete could not recover damages for either its contractor role or its public-adjuster role through quantum meruit or an equivalent restitutionary theory because the underlying agreement was illegal and void.
3. OXL,T did not waive the illegality defense because its answer broadly preserved the affirmative defenses under OCGA § 9-11-8(c), and, independently, a court may refuse to enforce a contract that is null, void, illegal, and against public policy even when illegality was not specifically pleaded.
4. The trial court was not required to make a separate finding that the agreement harmed the public interest because the General Assembly had expressly prohibited the conduct and the related dual representation by statute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the agreement was void and unenforceable because Service Complete acted as a public adjuster without the required license and, as a contractor, negotiated insurance claims concerning property for which it provided or might provide contracting services.
2. Whether Service Complete could recover in quantum meruit or unjust enrichment for construction or insurance-claim services performed under the allegedly illegal agreement.
3. Whether OXL,T waived the illegality defense by failing to specifically identify the public-adjuster statutes in its answer or motion to dismiss.
4. Whether the trial court was required to make a separate finding that the agreement harmed the public interest before declaring it void.

Disposition

affirmed