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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT