A Texas restoration company is suing Acrisure and one of its agents, claiming they sold bailee coverage without understanding what it actually covered.
ICS Insurance Construction Services filed its lawsuit on January 30, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, naming Acrisure, LLC and agent Susan Ruggles as defendants. The case puts a spotlight on what happens when brokers allegedly promise coverage they cannot deliver.
ICS restores residential properties after fires, floods, and storms. Part of the job involves storing homeowners' belongings — furniture, photographs, heirlooms — at its Dallas facility while repairs are underway. The company says it turned to Acrisure for help securing insurance that would protect those items.
Ruggles, who worked under the brand ARI Brokers (American Restoration Insurance), marketed herself as a specialist in coverage for restoration contractors. According to the lawsuit, she assured ICS in a February 2024 email that the quotes would "include all of the required coverages and verbiage" the company needed.
Acrisure placed ICS with GuideOne National Insurance Company under a policy that included a Bailees Customers Coverage endorsement with a $250,000 per occurrence limit. The key policy language stated that GuideOne would pay for physical loss or damage to covered property "for which you are liable."
That phrase, ICS argues, is where everything fell apart.
On May 28, 2024, a tornado tore through Dallas and ripped the roof off the company's storage facility. Customers' property was damaged. ICS filed a claim. GuideOne denied it on June 6, 2024, stating ICS was not "liable" because the tornado was an "act of God" and ICS was not negligent.
The lawsuit argues the policy language was ambiguous. Did "for which you are liable" mean ICS had to be negligent? Or did it simply mean ICS was responsible for property in its care? The company says its broker never raised the question — and never clarified the answer with the insurer.
What came next, according to the lawsuit, is telling. After the denial, Ruggles allegedly emailed GuideOne's claims adjuster: "From what I can see in the policy it should be covered." She followed up, writing: "from our perspective the insured is liable as soon as they take control of their customers goods."
She also allegedly expressed alarm, noting that Acrisure writes "hundreds of policies with Guide One for Restoration contractors who have this exposure" and calling the narrow interpretation "very concerning."
ICS is seeking damages it estimates at more than $5 million, including up to $247,500 in lost insurance proceeds, lost profits, and harm to its business relationships.
The case remains in its early stages, and no court has made any determination on the merits. Still, it raises uncomfortable questions for brokers who place specialized coverage: Do you truly understand what you are selling?
