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.