Ryan Gary and Rebecca Gary v. Hollier's Specialty Roofing, Inc.

Lafayette, Louisiana, civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a contract dispute.



The Garys sustained extensive roof damage when Humcane Delta blew through Lafayette Parish on October 9, 2020. The following day, the Garys met with a representative from Hollier Roofing. During this meeting, the Garys and Hollier Roofing signed an agreement to fix the damage. The agreement also contained an addendum authorizing direct payments from the Garys' insurer, Federal National Insurance Company, to Hollier Roofing.



A few weeks later, Hollier Roofing placed a temporary protective tarp over the damaged roof. The Garys then wrote a check to Hollier Roofing in the amount of $2,190.00, noting "tarp roofing" on the memo line.



In December 2020, Hollier Roofing submitted a claim for $5,588.88 to Federal National for the tarp work. The insurance company, in turn, mailed a check for this amount to the Garys. Thereafter, the Garys delivered this check to Hollier Roofing. But the Garys also delivered a second insurance check to Hollier Roofing. This check was drawn in the amount of $10,499.33 for roof repair.



Then, in late-January 2021, Hollier Roofing submitted a $21,234.04 estimate to Federal National for roof replacement. One month later, Hollier Roofing increased this estimate to $22,406.46, reflecting a price increase for materials. A few weeks after that, the Garys submitted a "proof of loss" prepared by Hollier 2Roofing in the same amount: $22,406.46. In response, Federal National approved an updated claim amount of $18,224.80.



By this time, however, the Garys were frustrated with Hollier Roofing: the placement of a temporary tarp was the only work that had been done, and Hollier Roofing had been paid $5,588.88 for that work. Yet Hollier Roofing was still holding an additional $12,689.13 that belonged to the Garys. And so, by late-April 2021, the Garys made a formal demand for the return of this money. Hollier Roofing ignored the demand, and the Garys filed suit on May 3, 2021. The Garys asserted various causes of action against Hollier Roofing, including a declaratory action as to the validity of the original agreement, unjust enrichment, and various claims under Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUT-PA).



In response, on May 10, 2021, Hollier Roofing returned $6,043.47. However, Hollier Roofing refused to hand over the balance of $6,664.46, claiming that those funds were for service expenses, administrative fees, overhead costs, and profits that it would have realized had the Garys honored the written agreement. A short time later, Hollier Roofing filed an exception of prematurity.



The trial of the Garys' declaratory action and Hollier Roofing's dilatory exception was held in July 2021. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court rendered judgment on March 4, 2022. In essence, the trial court found that the written agreement between the Garys and Hollier Roofing was invalid. The trial court also overruled the exception. This judgment was never appealed.



One month later, on April 8, 2022, Hollier Roofing filed a combined answer and reconventional demand. The Garys responded four weeks later by filing a motion to strike the reconventional demand. And two weeks after that, the Garys filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to their claim for unjust enrichment.



3In response, on June 13, 2022, Hollier Roofing filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Hollier Roofing also filed at that time a first amended answer and reconventional demand. A few days later, the Garys moved to dismiss the amended pleading and requested sanctions. Hollier Roofing, in turn, filed a motion for leave to amend. And after that, the Garys filed a motion to compel discovery.



The hearing on all these pre-trial motions was held on July 18, 2022. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued judgment and written reasons on August 19, 2022. In this judgment, the trial court granted the Garys' motion to strike, motion for partial summary judgment, and request for sanctions; the trial court denied Hollier Roofing's cross-motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, on August 31, 2022, the trial court issued a supplemental judgment. In that judgment, the trial court granted the Garys' motion to compel and denied Hollier Roofing's request for leave to amend. Hollier Roofing appealed these two judgments.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.