Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CT-1331 |
| Citation | 190 N.E.3d 359 |
| Parties | HOOSIER CONTRACTORS, LLC, Appellant-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellee/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Sean GARDNER, Appellee-Defendant/Cross-Appellant/Counterclaimant |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: William N. Riley, Russell B. Cate, Sundeep Singh, RileyCate, LLC, Fishers, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Paul L. Jefferson, Scott A. Milkey, Bradley J. Buchheit, McNeely Law, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Hoosier Contractors, LLC (Hoosier), filed a complaint against Sean Gardner alleging that he breached a contract (the Contract) that provided for Hoosier to make roof repairs on Gardner's home. Gardner filed a counterclaim, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated, alleging that Hoosier violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (the DCSA). Following the trial court's certification of the class, the parties filed several motions that have given rise to this appeal. Hoosier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the class lacked standing under the DCSA because they had not suffered actual damages, which the trial court denied. Gardner filed a motion to approve class action notice. In response, the trial court issued an order addressing notice of class action, which required that the notice advise potential class members that they could be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees under the DCSA if Hoosier prevailed at trial. Gardner also filed a motion for partial summary judgment contending that the Contract was null and void and that its liquidated damages provision was unenforceable, which the trial court denied. Hoosier and Gardner appeal these rulings. Finding no error, we affirm.
[2] We present the facts most favorable to Hoosier as the nonmovant on the issues raised in Gardner's summary judgment motion.1 In December 2015, Gardner contacted Hoosier to request a roof inspection and obtain an estimate for roof repairs on his Indianapolis home. On December 12, 2015, two Hoosier representatives visited Gardner's home. Prior to performing the inspection, Hoosier required Gardner to sign the Contract, a document entitled "Replacement Work Agreement." Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 7. The Contract provided that if the owner's insurance company did not agree to pay for the proposed repairs, then the Contract "shall be null and void." Id. The Contract also contained a clause providing for liquidated damages in the event of breach of twenty percent of the total Contract price. Id. at 8. Gardner signed the Contract, and Hoosier inspected his roof. Gardner submitted a claim for roof repairs to his homeowner's insurance provider, Cincinnati Insurance (Cincinnati).
[3] On January 6, 2016, Cincinnati issued a "Scope of Work" document, which was provided to Hoosier and Gardner, containing an itemized list of the work Hoosier would perform on Gardner's home and the estimated cost for each item. Id. at 6, 18-24. The total estimated cost of the work was $50,619.46. Id. at 24. According to Joshua White, Hoosier's president, the Scope of Work indicated Cincinnati's approval of the repair work and the estimated cost. Id. at 11; Appellant's App. Vol. 4 at 150. Gardner's deductible for his homeowner's insurance policy was $5,000. Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 11, 24.
[4] Gardner informed Hoosier that he believed that some of the items outlined in the Scope of Work were unnecessary, "asked for an adjustment of the insurance claim[,] and retained Spartan Claims, LLC [(Spartan)] to work with Cincinnati on the [a]djustment." Id. at 11-12. For approximately two weeks during January, Cincinnati exchanged emails with Spartan "regarding supplements and adjustments to the Scope of Work originally approved by Cincinnati." Id. at 12; Appellant's App. Vol. 4 at 144. On January 22, Cincinnati issued an updated Scope of Work, which "was substantially the same as the original claim, except for pricing and costs assigned to certain line items associated with replacement of the roof." Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 12, 25-32. The total estimated cost of the updated Scope of Work was $59,489.78. Id. at 12, 32. Hoosier paid Spartan's fee of $2,217.58. Id. at 12. According to White, "This is money Gardner did not pay but received the benefit of as the supplement was paid by Cincinnati." Id. at 12.
[5] At some point, Hoosier provided Gardner with a written notice of his right to cancel. This notice provided that if Gardner was notified by his insurance company that all or any part of the claim or the Contract was not a covered loss, he could "cancel the [C]ontract by mailing or delivering a signed and dated copy of this cancellation notice." Id. at 13, 34. Although Hoosier attempted to schedule repairs "approved by Cincinnati Insurance, Gardner refused to agree to a scheduled time for completion of the repairs." Id. at 13. "Hoosier never performed the agreed-upon repairs to Gardner's roof." Id. "Gardner did not indicate to Hoosier any desire or intent to cancel or repudiate the [C]ontract." Id. Cincinnati paid Gardner for the claim he filed. Hoosier alleges that Cincinnati paid Gardner "nearly $60,000" for roof repairs, but the portion of the record that it cites does not specify the amount Gardner received from Cincinnati. See Appellant's Br. at 10-11 (citing Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 145). The record shows that Gardner received two or three checks from Cincinnati for roof repairs but does not indicate the amount of money he actually received from Cincinnati. Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 145. Gardner paid another company approximately $18,000 to repair his roof. Id. at 145.
[6] In February 2016, Hoosier filed a breach of contract claim against Gardner. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 28. Gardner filed a counterclaim with a putative class action, which he later amended. Id. at 48-55. In his amended counterclaim, Gardner alleged that the Contract violated numerous requirements under the Home Improvement Contractors Act (the HICA), Indiana Code Chapter 24-5-11. Further, Gardner alleged that the HICA violations were used by Hoosier as part of a "scheme, artifice, or device" intended to mislead Indiana residents into executing home improvement contracts, which constituted an "incurable deceptive act" actionable by a consumer under the DCSA, Indiana Code Chapter 24-5-0.5. Id. at 48, 53.
[7] In January 2017, Hoosier filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. In so doing, the trial court found as follows:
Hoosier's contract appears to contain at least two prima facie violations of HICA's requirements. First, the [C]ontract does not contain a price for the home improvement work to be performed as required by IC § 24-5-11-10(a)(8). Second, the [C]ontract does not include a description of the work to be performed as required by IC § 24-5-11-10(a)(4).
[8] In July 2018, Gardner filed a motion to certify class action. In December 2018, the trial court granted the motion and certified the class as follows:
All persons who entered into a Home Improvement Contract with Hoosier Contractors, LLC from February 12, 2014 until such time that Hoosier stopped utilizing said Contract(s) and began utilizing a Home Improvement Contract that was in compliance with the [HICA].
Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 178.
[9] In February and March 2020, the parties filed the motions that led to this appeal. Hoosier filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the class members lacked standing under the DCSA because they had not suffered actual damages. Gardner filed a motion to approve class action notice. He also filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the Contract was null and void and that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable. Following a hearing, in April 2021, the trial court issued separate orders denying each party's motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court also issued an order addressing notice of class action, in which the court ruled that the notice was required to advise potential class members that they could be liable for Hoosier's attorney fees if Hoosier prevails at trial. This appeal and cross-appeal ensued.
[10] Hoosier appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment, and Gardner cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for partial summary judgment as well as the court's order addressing notice of class action. Our summary judgment standard of review is well established:
We review a summary judgment ruling de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. The moving party bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is improper if the moving party fails to carry its burden, but if it succeeds, then the nonmoving party must come forward with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. We construe all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. Our review is limited to those facts designated to the trial court.
Hopkins v. Indpls. Pub. Sch. , 183 N.E.3d 308, 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. When a challenge to summary judgment raises questions of law, this Court reviews them de novo. Monroe Cnty. v. Boathouse Apts. , 177 N.E.3d 1201, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied (2022). We owe no deference to a trial court's legal conclusions. Id. at 1205. Where, as here, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, our standard of review is not affected. Id. "We simply review each motion independently and construe the facts in favor of the nonmoving party in each instance." Id.
Section 1 – The class has standing to bring a claim for statutory damages under Indiana Code Section 24-5-0.5-4(a).
[11] ...
To continue reading
Request your trial