Holden Roofing sued by Texas AG's office

centexunfilterednews.blogspot.co … -with.html

Sent this link via text to a couple of y’all (don’t have everyone on “blast” for an address book, only a few here 'n there).

Long & short of it: the AG’s office is accusing Holden of slapping customers with a Contingency Contract when they aren’t aware it’s a Contingency Contract (& if the customer tries to get out of it, it would seem Holden is going after the customer).

I have sent this info (as well as my “Representation & Repair Agreement” & “Consideration of Work” doc off to one of my lawyers to get his quick & dirty opinion.

& Believe me, when I saw the URL contained the words “ag-charges-roofing-contractor-with” I was damn sure high on a cloud hoping it was something about insurance fraud.

Alas & alack, 'twas not to be. :frowning:

~ discuss ~

Without seeing the contract in question and knowing more details of their approach, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from this. It sounds like the core issue is ignoring the Texas statute relating to a 3 day right of rescission.

Sadly, I’d offer odds that at least some of the HO’s involved knowingly signed the contract offered by the roof contractor and utilized their efforts and expertise to get their claim approved then wanted to cancel the contract in order to profit from their insurance claim. It speaks volumes that the TX AG would pursue prosecution of the roofing contractor while apparently ignoring blatant insurance fraud taking place hundreds and thousands of times daily throughout the state. Perhaps the roofing contractor truly is a scumbag. Alternatively, perhaps the roofing contractor had the misfortune of going after a couple of people who had the “right” connections.

I’ve met the Texas AG before, albeit in a social setting & for a grand sum of less than 3 minutes.

He’s made his place within the party faithful for pushing tort reform, however his background is that he sued someone (their insurer) when their tree fell on him & paralyzed him from the waist down.

justinian.us/2009/02/i-would … wsuit.html

[quote]In 1984, Greg Abbott was jogging in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a tree fell on him while he was jogging and partially paralyzed him – he’s in a wheelchair today.

Greg Abbott hired Texas attorney Don Riddle to sue the homeowner of the tree, and a company who once trimmed the tree.

Don Riddle obtained a settlement for Mr. Abbott that may exceed $10 million in his lifetime. He receives yearly payments, and according to this article, Mr. Abbott received $300,000 in 2001 alone.

Surprisingly, Greg Abbott has become a major champion for tort reform. As a Supreme Court justice in Texas appointed by George W. Bush, Mr. Abbott helped push a tort reform agenda. Here’s what Don Riddle, Mr. Abbott’s attorney has to say: “People who sadly find themselves in Greg Abbott’s position today will not have the same access to obtaining compensation that Mr. Abbott had. The difference is the tort reform laws that have come into place.” Had the tort reform laws Mr. Abbott advocates been in place in 1984, Mr. Abbott would not receive $300,000 or more every year of his life. Why then, is it fair for Mr. Abbott to receive millions of dollars in pain and suffering – and mental anguish – but it’s not fair for other Texans?

The Texas Observer has even more details about the hypocrisy of Greg Abbott. For example, here’s what Greg Abbott had to say about Kirk Watson’s competing campaign for attorney general: “My opponent, a former Mayor of Austin, is a liberal plaintiff personal injury trial lawyer who’s made millions suing doctors, hospitals, businessmen and women,” Greg Abbott is just one of many conservative Republicans who head straight for “liberal plaintiff personal injury trial lawyers” like Mr. Watson when they’re injured.

This article at the Austin Chronicle calls Greg Abbott “[T]he most reliably pro-corporate vote on the consistently pro-corporate court.” While another article, also from the Austin Chronicle says that “Abbott’s judicial achievement list might have been drawn directly from the corporate-friendly agenda of the Texans for Lawsuit Reform.”
[/quote]

But, there… I’ve said too much. I’m probably going to be investigated by the AG’s office after posting that.

Those guys are always up to something or involved in some sort of controversy it seems. What a mess.

:shock:

[quote=“Authentic_Dad”]Without seeing the contract in question and knowing more details of their approach, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from this. It sounds like the core issue is ignoring the Texas statute relating to a 3 day right of rescission.

Sadly, I’d offer odds that at least some of the HO’s involved knowingly signed the contract offered by the roof contractor and utilized their efforts and expertise to get their claim approved then wanted to cancel the contract in order to profit from their insurance claim. It speaks volumes that the TX AG would pursue prosecution of the roofing contractor while apparently ignoring blatant insurance fraud taking place hundreds and thousands of times daily throughout the state. Perhaps the roofing contractor truly is a scumbag. Alternatively, perhaps the roofing contractor had the misfortune of going after a couple of people who had the “right” connections.[/quote]

Sounds like a typical combination of the two…

[quote=“LMB”]

[quote=“Authentic_Dad”]Without seeing the contract in question and knowing more details of their approach, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from this. It sounds like the core issue is ignoring the Texas statute relating to a 3 day right of rescission.

Sadly, I’d offer odds that at least some of the HO’s involved knowingly signed the contract offered by the roof contractor and utilized their efforts and expertise to get their claim approved then wanted to cancel the contract in order to profit from their insurance claim. It speaks volumes that the TX AG would pursue prosecution of the roofing contractor while apparently ignoring blatant insurance fraud taking place hundreds and thousands of times daily throughout the state. Perhaps the roofing contractor truly is a scumbag. Alternatively, perhaps the roofing contractor had the misfortune of going after a couple of people who had the “right” connections.[/quote]

LMB Quote
Sounds like a typical combination of the two…[/quote]

I agree with both of you,But we did have a contractor that was submitting estimates with a 3 day limit for with drawl,(nestled on the back of course) and going after the HO for not withdrawing.

I think alot has to do with (as you have said)the contractor meeting the adjuster and assisting in identifying storm damage for the entire property and another contractor comes in behind you and tries to flip your contract.Most HO’s are gracious for your knowledge and appreciate your time while helping them.

BUT then you have the knuckleheads that get those wheels a turning in that greedy little brain.
They start thinking that the offer from Douche bag exteriors to gobble the deductible and throw some cash back into their grubby little paws,it starts looking appealing to them.

THEN comes the cheated,poor little taken advantage of family of 5 with a damaged home and all they wanted was to be treated fairly and to have property repairs like everyone else does.Those poor little Jones’s.,.,Here let me change your diaper and clean up that dripple of milk off your stubby little chinny chin chin.

Then the guy from Douche Bag Exteriors SAVES the day.,.,.,meanwhile you are wondering just what the fu** is going on.

All the while they are GRINNING from ear to ear,(Behind closed doors,of course)

The whole deal with contingency agreements as well as PA attempts to prohibt contractors from representing, neotiating for/on behalf of, etc has gotten entirely out of hand.

An honest contractor using a contingency agreement for storm damage work is the best choice for an (honest) HO who wants to be fully paid for their damage. No damned attorney can logically argue otherwise (obviously, many will still try).

The PA deal…I have no problem with someone wanting to become a PA. If they can get the work, fine. That being said, I do have a problem with them and others attempting to prohibit contractors from doing essentially the same thing at no fee - particularly since they will usually know better than most PA’s what needs to be done. If a HO wants to unnecessarily dilute their claim (say $25,000) by $2,500 paid to a PA, whatever. Or, they can pay it to the contractor. Same $ amount either way.

In the coming weeks I will be sending out info to all 50 state AG’s and ins commissioners as well as the NAIC gang of busy bodies with the expectation of exposing the attempts and clarifying both the PA and the contingency. Most based on the “Sausage Makers - Chapter 3” article I included at www.iccoa.com/chapter3.htm.

Before I do, opinions, thoughts, etc. would be appreciated.

[quote=“LMB”]The whole deal with contingency agreements as well as PA attempts to prohibt contractors from representing, neotiating for/on behalf of, etc has gotten entirely out of hand.

An honest contractor using a contingency agreement for storm damage work is the best choice for an (honest) HO who wants to be fully paid for their damage. No damned attorney can logically argue otherwise (obviously, many will still try).

The PA deal…I have no problem with someone wanting to become a PA. If they can get the work, fine. That being said, I do have a problem with them and others attempting to prohibit contractors from doing essentially the same thing at no fee - particularly since they will usually know better than most PA’s what needs to be done. If a HO wants to unnecessarily dilute their claim (say $25,000) by $2,500 paid to a PA, whatever. Or, they can pay it to the contractor. Same $ amount either way.

In the coming weeks I will be sending out info to all 50 state AG’s and ins commissioners as well as the NAIC gang of busy bodies with the expectation of exposing the attempts and clarifying both the PA and the contingency. Most based on the “Sausage Makers - Chapter 3” article I included at iccoa.com/chapter3.htm.

Before I do, opinions, thoughts, etc. would be appreciated.[/quote]

I’m liking you more with every post.

[quote=“RanchHandRoofing”]

[quote=“LMB”]The whole deal with contingency agreements as well as PA attempts to prohibt contractors from representing, neotiating for/on behalf of, etc has gotten entirely out of hand.

An honest contractor using a contingency agreement for storm damage work is the best choice for an (honest) HO who wants to be fully paid for their damage. No damned attorney can logically argue otherwise (obviously, many will still try).

The PA deal…I have no problem with someone wanting to become a PA. If they can get the work, fine. That being said, I do have a problem with them and others attempting to prohibit contractors from doing essentially the same thing at no fee - particularly since they will usually know better than most PA’s what needs to be done. If a HO wants to unnecessarily dilute their claim (say $25,000) by $2,500 paid to a PA, whatever. Or, they can pay it to the contractor. Same $ amount either way.

In the coming weeks I will be sending out info to all 50 state AG’s and ins commissioners as well as the NAIC gang of busy bodies with the expectation of exposing the attempts and clarifying both the PA and the contingency. Most based on the “Sausage Makers - Chapter 3” article I included at iccoa.com/chapter3.htm.

Before I do, opinions, thoughts, etc. would be appreciated.[/quote]

I’m liking you more with every post.[/quote]

Temporary Insanity. LOL

[quote=“RanchHandRoofing”]I’ve met the Texas AG before, albeit in a social setting & for a grand sum of less than 3 minutes.

He’s made his place within the party faithful for pushing tort reform, however his background is that he sued someone (their insurer) when their tree fell on him & paralyzed him from the waist down.

justinian.us/2009/02/i-would … wsuit.html

[quote]In 1984, Greg Abbott was jogging in the wrong place at the wrong time, and a tree fell on him while he was jogging and partially paralyzed him – he’s in a wheelchair today.

Greg Abbott hired Texas attorney Don Riddle to sue the homeowner of the tree, and a company who once trimmed the tree.

Don Riddle obtained a settlement for Mr. Abbott that may exceed $10 million in his lifetime. He receives yearly payments, and according to this article, Mr. Abbott received $300,000 in 2001 alone.

Surprisingly, Greg Abbott has become a major champion for tort reform. As a Supreme Court justice in Texas appointed by George W. Bush, Mr. Abbott helped push a tort reform agenda. Here’s what Don Riddle, Mr. Abbott’s attorney has to say: “People who sadly find themselves in Greg Abbott’s position today will not have the same access to obtaining compensation that Mr. Abbott had. The difference is the tort reform laws that have come into place.” Had the tort reform laws Mr. Abbott advocates been in place in 1984, Mr. Abbott would not receive $300,000 or more every year of his life. Why then, is it fair for Mr. Abbott to receive millions of dollars in pain and suffering – and mental anguish – but it’s not fair for other Texans?

[/quote]

But, there… I’ve said too much. I’m probably going to be investigated by the AG’s office after posting that.[/quote]

Greg Abbot is quite the darling among the Republican Old Guard here in Texas, but as one of the Republican New Blood contingent, I don’t cotton to him at all.

Basically, I’d have to say, Greg Abbot is just NOT a stand-up guy.

[quote=“neville”]

Basically, I’d have to say, Greg Abbot is just NOT a stand-up guy.[/quote]

Since he is confined to a wheel chair, goes without saying.

[quote=“Authentic_Dad”]

[quote=“neville”]

Basically, I’d have to say, Greg Abbot is just NOT a stand-up guy.[/quote]

Since he is confined to a wheel chair, goes without saying.[/quote]

Hmm, perhaps I should have added the smiley-face after all. :o

Greg Abbot was one of the loudest voices 3-4 years ago supporting the sheriff/CPS military raid that separated over Texas 400 children from their mothers for months while the fathers were investigated (and ultimately cleared) of charges made via a prank phone call by a known prankster / previously-identified axe-grinding woman in Colorado. Governor Rick “Mr. Good Hair” Perry was in full agreement. Then, the Texas Supreme Court (mostly GOP, like Abbot, 2 actually appointed by Perry) slapped them both down and said CPS was way out of line and ordered the children released.

I guess it was too much to hope for to see a headline back then trumpeting “Texas High Court Says Abbot Doesn’t Have a Leg to Stand on”. Now, that would have created a nice little diversion, don’t you think? :badgrin:

Not PC but would have certainly been appropriate. Thanks for the laugh.

D*ck Hurts from Holden is on line one. :slight_smile: