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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT