ILNews

Attorney general sues 3 contractors over poor work, no refunds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Wednesday that he has filed lawsuits against three contractors doing business in Indiana that didn’t perform work as promised or misrepresented the urgency of needed repairs.

Zoeller sued Patriot Restoration of New Castle LLC in Henry County alleging the company, which approached consumers at their homes to make storm damage repairs, did not complete work, refunds were not issued, and the contracts didn’t meet state requirements. Since November 2011, at least 27 homeowners entered into contracts with the company totaling more than $66,000. Patriot Restoration is accused of violating the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Home Solicitation Sales Act and the Home Improvement Contracts Act.

The attorney general accuses Reliable Home Improvements LLC of also failing to fulfill contracts or providing refunds after its owners helped customers obtain bank financing, including filling out credit applications. The suit, filed in Lake County, claims the company violated the Home Improvement Contracts Act, Credit Services Organizations Act and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

In a lawsuit filed targeting Indianapolis-based Mister Quik, a heating, cooling, electrical and plumbing company, the attorney general alleges the company charged unusually high prices for services it made appear more urgent than in actuality to customers. The suit says Mister Quik told two customers that their electrical panels needed replaced immediately or a fire could start. The company charged nearly $3,000 for the services, nearly twice as much as other contractors would have charged.

The complaint alleges the company violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and Indiana Home Improvement Contracts Act. The state is seeking injunctive relief, consumer restitution, investigative costs and civil penalties.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT