Roofers, Insurance, Hurricanes and Fraud
Post 5234
See the video at https://rumble.com/v7281fq-a-blue-tarp-is-not-a-roof-repair.html and at https://youtu.be/tgdzky79tG0, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Homeowners Defrauded by Roofer Litigates for Years to Get Their Money Back
In Gary v. Hollier’s Specialty Roofing, Inc., 23-260 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/27/23), 389 So. 3d 109 Ryan Gary and Rebecca Gary (the Garys), homeowners who suffered roof damage from Hurricane Delta sued Hollier’s Specialty Roofing, Inc. (Hollier Roofing), a roofing contractor who took the money and refused to complete the repair of the roof.
KEY FACTS
The Garys’ roof was damaged by Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. The next day, they signed a written agreement with Hollier Roofing for repairs, including an addendum authorizing direct insurance payments from their insurer, Federal National Insurance Company.
Hollier Roofing installed a temporary tarp and received payments totaling $18,278.21 ($2,190 from the Garys for the tarp, plus insurance checks of $5,588.88 for the tarp and $10,499.33 for repairs). However, no further work was done, and Hollier Roofing submitted escalating estimates ($21,234.04, then $22,406.46) for full roof replacement, leading to an updated insurance approval of $18,224.80.
Frustrated by the lack of progress, the Garys demanded return of unearned funds ($12,689.13) in April 2021. Hollier Roofing partially refunded $6,043.47 but retained $6,645.66, claiming it for overhead, profits, and services under the agreement. The Garys sued in May 2021 for declaratory judgment (invalidating the contract), unjust enrichment, and violations of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial Court Proceedings
On July 2021 the trial took place on declaratory action and Hollier Roofing’s exception of prematurity. March 2022 judgment invalidated the written contract and overruled the exception (unappealed).
April 2022: Hollier Roofing filed an answer and reconventional demand for breach of contract and LUTPA attorney fees. In May 2022 the Garys moved to strike the reconventional demand and for partial summary judgment on unjust enrichment.
In June 2022: Hollier Roofing filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an amended answer/reconventional demand (without leave for the answer portion). The Garys responded with motions to dismiss the amended pleading, for sanctions, and to compel discovery. On August 19, 2022 the court granted Garys’ motion to strike reconventional demand, partial summary judgment (awarding $6,645.66 for unjust enrichment), and sanctions ($1,500 attorney fees) and concurrently denied Hollier Roofing’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
On August 31, 2022 the court entered a Supplemental Judgment granting the Garys’ motion to compel discovery and denied Hollier Roofing’s motion for leave to amend.
Hollier Roofing appealed both judgments (amended May 15, 2023, for decretal language). Garys answered seeking additional attorney fees.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal conducted de novo review for summary judgments and abuse of discretion/manifest error for other issues and held.
Garys’ Partial Summary Judgment was reversed. Garys’ supporting documents (check copies) were unauthenticated (not affidavits/depositions; prior admissions insufficient under La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D)(2)). Genuine issues of material fact remained on unjust enrichment.
Dismissal of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Affirmed): Untimely served under La. Code Civ. P. arts. 966(B)(1) & 1313(C) (no electronic confirmation of delivery; “Not Read” receipt insufficient).
Denial of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was moot. Dismissed as untimely served. Sanctions/Attorney Fees (Reversed): Manifest error under La. Code Civ. P. art. 863; no exceptional circumstances. No bad faith or improper purpose.
Denial of Leave to Amend was affirmed because there was no abuse; evidence showed Hollier Roofing’s pattern of bad faith (delaying tactics, undue prejudice to Garys).
Garys’ Request for Additional Attorney Fees was denied.
DISPOSITION
August 19, 2022 Judgment (as amended) was reversed and dismissed Hollier Roofing’s LUTPA attorney fees claim, Garys’ partial summary judgment, and sanctions/attorney fees was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Hurricanes are hotbeds for fraud perpetrators. The litigation made clear that defendant Hollier Roofing acted horribly to the Garys. They took their money, put a tarp on their roof, and left. Their actions were clearly fraudulent and they deserved judgments against them but had enough money to take the Garys’ through litigation for years from 2020 to 2025 where the opinion finally got a judgment that the Garys can use to get some of their money back if Hollier has funds that can be attached and garnished to the Garys.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
