Three roofing cases show why job records matter
Recent cases in Ohio, North Carolina and Connecticut involve alleged unfinished work, roof damage and unreported workers. Owners can use the cases as a prompt to check how jobs, insurance and payroll are documented.
Roofing contractors and workers face legal cases in three states, with allegations tied to customer losses, insurance claims and workers’ compensation. The cases are not findings of guilt. They do show how problems with job completion, damage reports or worker records can draw attention from customers and regulators.
According to Roofing Contractor, Ohio’s attorney general filed two lawsuits on Oct. 14 against home-improvement contractors. The suits allege violations of the state’s consumer-protection law and seek financial relief for customers, along with other remedies.
Ohio lawsuits focus on unfinished and defective work
One suit targets Journey Home Restoration and its owner, Jason Kaczur. The attorney general alleges nine customers paid a combined $140,000 for roofing, siding and gutter work that was not completed.
The second suit names The Metal Roof Company and its owner, Danile Toland. It alleges the company did defective roofing work for some customers and did not respond when customers raised problems. In one case, the suit says the company took payment for a new roof but did not start the job.
Five consumers reported combined losses of more than $60,000 involving The Metal Roof Company, according to the attorney general. Because the business appears to still be operating, the state is asking other consumers with similar concerns to come forward.
For owners, the practical issue is not just whether a job gets done. A clear record of what was promised, what was completed, what changed and how a complaint was handled can help show the steps taken if a customer questions the work.
Other allegations involve insurance and payroll
In North Carolina, a roofing employee faces three felony charges. State investigators allege Cameron Alexander Hammond intentionally damaged shingles at a home in Washington, then described the damage as weather-related to insurers in an effort to obtain a roof replacement and a commission.
Hammond was working for Carolina Trophy Roofs, according to investigators. He was arrested Oct. 12 and released on a $5,000 secured bond. He is scheduled to appear in Beaufort County District Court on Dec. 17. The allegations have not been proven, and he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
In Connecticut, Luis Pomaquiza, owner of LA Roofing LLC, was charged with workers’ compensation insurance fraud. Investigators allege they found multiple employees at roof replacement sites who had not been reported to the company’s workers’ compensation insurer.
The Connecticut case followed site visits in Southington by workers’ compensation investigators and the state labor department. Pomaquiza was arrested Oct. 15, released on a $10,000 non-surety bond and scheduled to appear in Middletown Superior Court on Oct. 20. The charge is an accusation, and he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The cases cover different conduct, and the allegations are not proof that a company or worker broke the law. Still, they point to routine controls that owners can review: written job scopes, records of customer approvals, accurate descriptions of damage, and current worker and insurance information.
What owners can check this week
Owners do not need to wait for a complaint or audit to tighten their records. A short review of current jobs can reveal missing paperwork before it becomes a dispute.
- Check open jobs against signed scopes, payment records and completion notes. Contact customers if a delay or change needs a written update.
- Ask crews to document roof conditions with dated photos before and after work. Do not describe damage as weather-related unless the facts support that description.
- Compare the active worker list with payroll and workers’ compensation records. Ask the insurer or payroll contact to clarify any mismatch.
- Set one process for complaints: record the issue, the date received, the response and the repair or follow-up offered.
Good records cannot prevent every dispute, and they do not replace legal or insurance advice. They can help an owner explain what happened, confirm who was on a job and show how the business responded when a customer raised a concern.