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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
