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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
