this section, the insured is not liable for the payment of any past services rendered, or future services to be rendered, by the violating person under that contract or otherwise. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 4102.207. This statutory remedy expressly provides that if an insured voids a contract with an unlicensed insurance adjuster, “the insured is not liable for the payment of any past services rendered, or future services to be rendered, by the violating person under that contract or otherwise.” Id. § 4102.207(b), Examining the plain language of section 4102.207(b)’s statutory disgorgement provision, no words or phrases are utilized that could be construed as contemplating inclusion of the common-law doctrine of mutual restitution. Cf. Morton v. Nguyen, 412 S.W.3d 506, 509-12 (Tex. 2013) (<HOLDING>); Cruz, 364 S.W.3d at 825-26 (explaining DTPA
holding apprendi inapplicable to restitution orders because restitution for harm done is a classic civil remedy holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code holding statutory property code remedy of cancellation and rescission contemplated inclusion of the commonlaw requirement of mutual restitution holding that the tila rescission remedy did apply where borrowers encumbered a second property in order to obtain financing for the first property holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not