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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
