COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONROE COUNTY
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Civil Action, Plaintiff, against
CAMERON HOMES & CONSTRUCTION INC.
AND BRUCE CAMERON,
Phone
570-897-7048
Address
794 Sunrise Blvd.
Mt. Bethel, PA 18343
Plaintiff by attorney for Verified Complaint herein alleges the following:
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff is an individual residing in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
Upon information and belief, defendant Cameron Homes & Construction Inc. (“Cameron Homes”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business at 794 Sunrise Boulevard, Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania.
Upon information and belief, defendant Bruce D. Cameron is an individual residing in Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Cameron Homes is engaged in the business of performing home construction and improvements for the public.
Bruce D. Cameron holds himself out to the public as being an expert in home design, construction and improvements.
On January 16, 2004, Plaintiff and defendant Cameron Homes entered into a Design-Build Agreement (the “Design Agreement”) relating to Plaintiff’s home located in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (the “Premises”). A copy of the Design Agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
On June 20, 2004, Plaintiff and defendant Cameron Homes entered into a Construction Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the expansion and renovation of the Premises (the “Work”). A copy of the Agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
On June 20, 2004, Plaintiff and defendant Cameron Homes entered into a document entitled Addition Specifications (the “Specs”) pertaining to the Work. A copy of the Specs is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
On October 8, 2004, Plaintiff and defendant Cameron Homes entered into an Addendum to the Agreement (the “Addendum”). A copy of the Addendum is annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
On or about March 15, 2005, defendants prepared an Excel spreadsheet entitled “Renovation Project Draws/Payments” (the “Spreadsheet”) that set forth in detail numerous additional jobs to be performed by defendants as part of the Work. A copy of the Spreadsheet is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. The Agreement, the Specs, the Addendum and the Spreadsheet are referred to collectively herein as the “Documents.”
Defendants began performing the Work in July 2004 and continued working at the Premises, on and off, until May, 2007.
After approximately April 2006, defendants became increasingly inattentive to the Work, which was never completed in accordance with the Documents.
Between June, 2006 and July, 2007, plaintiff repeatedly complained to defendants in writing regarding the numerous deficiencies in those portions of the Work that had been performed and regarding the uncompleted portions of the Work, as more fully set forth below (collectively, the “Deficiencies”). In addition, plaintiff repeatedly conveyed to defendants that certain of the Deficiencies were causing substantial damage to the Premises as more fully set forth below. Defendants acknowledged responsibility for certain of the Deficiencies and corrected some of them. In most cases, however, defendants refused to remedy the Deficiencies and either disclaimed responsibility or simply ignored plaintiff’s correspondence.
In May, 2007, plaintiff requested that defendants provide an accounting of payments made to defendants and costs and expenses incurred by defendants in connection with the Work, which defendants were unwilling or unable to provide and did not provide.
Between June 2007 and March 2008, plaintiff and defendants, through their respective attorneys, exchanged settlement demands and offers but were unable to agree on a settlement.
Inasmuch as defendants have shown themselves to be unwilling and unable to complete the Work in accordance with the Documents, and the Deficiencies have resulted and continue to result in further damage to the Premises, Plaintiff now seeks financial compensation to allow completion of the Work as provided for in the Documents and to repair the damage that has been caused directly and indirectly by the actions and omissions of defendants.
DETAILED FACTS
I. Work for which plaintiff paid but which defendants did not perform:
The Documents provided for defendants to install finish flooring in the lower floor addition and bathroom area of the Premises. However, defendants did not do so. Additionally, defendants constructed the cement block outer walls in such a way that a smooth finish cannot be achieved. In order to finish the floor, plaintiff will be required to install a row of floor tiling around three of the walls (plaintiff’s contractor and a tile merchant estimate a cost of $800.00 to purchase and install the tiles), then hire a contractor to prepare and finish the floor. Plaintiff’s contractors estimate that the cost of preparing and finishing the floor will be $3,619.00, the cost of necessary removal and later reinstallation of all plumbing will be $450.00, and the cost of cleanup will be $419.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $5,288.00.
The Documents provided for Defendants to install a walk-out deck, but defendants did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $5,500.00.
The Documents provided for Defendants to install a deck railing, but defendants did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,200.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to “frame in” two 24’ support steel beams. Plaintiff chose instead to scrape and paint the beams rather than frame them. Since defendants did not frame the beams, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,350.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to construct walls around the toilet in the lower floor bathroom. With plaintiff’s consent, defendants did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,100.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to construct walls around the toilet in the loft area. With plaintiff’s consent, defendants did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $600.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to install three interior doors. Only two doors were installed. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants for the cost of one door, or $200.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to install four sets of doors and screen doors, including screen doors to the side deck. Defendants did not install the side deck screen doors. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants for the cost of the uninstalled doors, or $315.65.
The Documents provided for defendants to install three panel sets of windows, each a picture window with flanking casements. Defendants did not order the correct windows and/or failed to recognize that the windows that were delivered were not the ones that were supposed to have been ordered, and then installed the incorrect windows. Defendants acknowledged the error but refused to correct it. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $732.50.
After an error by defendants in ordering wood trim to be used around the newly installed windows, plaintiff (with defendants’ consent) ordered wood, sanded to finish, for next-day delivery from a third-party lumber yard. Defendants failed to install the trim, leaving plaintiff with unused lumber. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $200.00, the cost of the cut and sanded lumber.
The Documents provided for defendants to frame and “box in” the upper floor bathroom plumbing over the kitchen area. With plaintiff’s consent, defendants did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $325.00.
The Documents provided for defendants to repair the chimney, but defendants did not do so. Plaintiff arranged for this repair at a cost of $750.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $750.00.
The Documents provided for the defendants to trim the interior of the closet they installed, but defendants did not do so. Plaintiff’s contractor estimates the cost of this oversight to be $150.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund of $150.00.
The total amount due to be refunded to plaintiff for Work for which plaintiff paid defendants but which defendants did not perform is $17,711.15.
II. Work that defendants performed poorly that needs to be repaired or redone:
Defendants improperly installed radiant heating tubes under the sub-flooring on the first floor of the Premises. In order to correct their error, defendants were required to demolish the lower level walls and ceiling, remove and replace the radiant tubing, and rebuild the walls and ceiling. Plaintiff was required to pay $419.00 to clean up spackle dust that permeated the Premises. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $419.00.
Defendants improperly installed drywall with two coats of spackle rather than the customary three coats to finish. Plaintiff’s contractor estimates the cost of applying a third coat of spackle to be $850.00. Plaintiff anticipates that after the third coat is applied and sanded, spackle dust will again permeate the Premises. Therefore, plaintiff will be required to again pay for cleanup at a cost of $419.00, and will be required to repaint the room at a cost of $200.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,469.00.
Defendants negligently failed to caulk around any of the newly installed windows and doors throughout the Premises, causing water to leak into the lower level of the Premises whenever there is a hard rain. Plaintiff requested repeatedly since July, 2006 that defendants correct the leak condition. At this time, in order to repair any internal damage caused by the leaks since the time of construction, the siding, one window, and a portion of the insulation in the lower-level wall must be removed and replaced, and if mold is present it will have to be removed. Plaintiff’s contractor quoted a cost of $1,500.00 to perform this work. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,500.00.
In order to correct defendants’ negligent failure to caulk around any of the newly installed windows and doors throughout the Premises, plaintiff’s contractor did this work at a cost of $550.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $550.00.
Defendants negligently failed to install insulation over the new plumbing installed by defendants on the northeast wall of the Premises, causing the plumbing pipes to freeze in cold weather. This required defendants to remove the wood siding, add insulation, and replace the siding. In doing so, defendants negligently created gaps of one to two inches between the wood siding and the roof overhang. Plaintiff’s contractor quoted a cost of $1,200.00 to repair this negligent workmanship. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,200.00.
Despite express instructions from plaintiff’s architect, defendants erroneously failed to install support beams from the top to the bottom of the Premises. Stress cracks have developed in the interior tiles on the walls and ceiling of the lower-level shower. Plaintiff’s contractor states that the cracks are due to poor support of the building and estimates that the cost to replace the tiles will be $1,750.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,750.00.
Defendants negligently poured concrete for the lower floor in a manner that resulted in extensive cracking of the floor. Plaintiff’s contractor estimates the cost of repairing the cracks to be $600.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $600.00.
Defendants negligently failed to close the French drains on the north side of the Premises. Plaintiff was required to hire a contractor to do so at a cost of $200.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $200.00.
Defendants incorrectly installed ridge vents in a manner that allowed flying squirrels to enter and live in the building. Plaintiff was required to hire a contractor to correct the error at a cost of $150.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $150.00.
The total amount due to plaintiff for Work that defendants performed poorly such that it needs to be repaired or redone is $7,838.00.
III. Work for which defendants agreed to reimburse plaintiff, but did not:
The Design Agreement provided that defendants would credit back to plaintiff “100% of the total fees paid . . . under this Agreement.” Plaintiff paid defendants $1,650.00 under the Design Agreement, but no credit was given. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,650.00.
Defendants’ work resulted in numerous spackling errors, sloppy areas and incomplete areas throughout the Premises. Defendants agreed in writing that plaintiff could hire a contractor to finish these areas and be reimbursed for the cost thereof. Plaintiff hired a contractor to perform this work, at a cost of $750.00, but was not reimbursed. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $750.00.
Defendants negligently allowed plaintiff’s bathtub, which had cost $3,000.00, to remain unprotected on an outside deck for six months despite plaintiff’s requests that the tub be stored elsewhere at the Premises for its protection. When the bathtub was installed, plaintiff observed that it had been seriously scratched while left outside. Plaintiff’s porcelain repair contractor estimates the cost of repair to be $200.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $200.00.
Defendants failed to install plumbing sufficient for shower and toilet usage by the agreed-upon date of August 19, 2005. Defendants agreed to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of one night in a hotel room, $88.38, but did not do so. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $88.38.
Defendants failed to install a stove at the Premises by the date they promised to do so. In reliance on defendants’ promise, plaintiff scheduled a visit by the gas company to turn on the gas service, but the gas company was required to make another visit because the stove had not yet been installed. The gas company charged plaintiff a fee of $37.50 for the return visit. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $37.50.
The total amount due to plaintiff for Work for which defendants agreed to reimburse plaintiff, but did not, is $2,725.88.
IV. Work for which defendants improperly charged plaintiff:
Defendants overcharged plaintiff for finishing the original flooring at the Premises. Based on calculations by defendants’ flooring subcontractor, the amount of the overcharge was $1,401.72. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,401.72.
Defendants charged plaintiff for plumbing modifications in connection with the installation of two toilets that plaintiff had provided five months prior to the installation date. Had defendants notified plaintiff earlier that the toilets provided were not suitable for use with the existing plumbing at the Premises, plaintiff would have replaced the toilets. Therefore, defendants’ charge was inappropriate and plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $480.00.
Defendants charged plaintiff the sum of $1,046.00 in labor charges for work that became necessary only as a result of defendants’ own failure to properly plan for the installation of lower-floor doors, as clearly provided for in the Documents. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $1,046.00.
Defendants erroneously charged plaintiff the sum of $375.00 to rent a dumpster to remove plaintiff’s personal items. In fact, plaintiff had removed all personal items from the Premises before construction began. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $375.00.
Defendants agreed to credit plaintiff for the cost of lighting fixtures supplied by plaintiff. Defendants erroneously credited plaintiff the sum of $800.00; however, defendants’ actual documented cost for such lighting fixtures was $840.00. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $40.00.
Defendants failed to install radiant heat in the existing lower floor of the Premises using the methodology and techniques specified in the Documents. The method used by defendants was inferior and less costly. Defendants’ contractor estimates that defendants achieved a cost savings of $2,000.00 using the inferior method of installation. Therefore, plaintiff is due a refund from defendants in the amount of $2,000.00.
The total amount due to plaintiff for Work for which defendants improperly charged plaintiff is $5,342.72.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 52 above as though fully set forth herein.
It is unlawful to engage in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any transaction, including making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing, or failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee or warranty given to the buyer at, prior to or after a contract for the purchase of goods or services is made. Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-3.
As a result of defendants’ said unfair or deceptive acts and inferior quality repairs and improvements to the property, and failure to comply with the terms of written guarantees or warranties given to plaintiff, all of which constitute violations of the UTPCPL, plaintiff has sustained actual damages for the repairs necessary to the property.
Plaintiff demands payment of actual damages, plus treble damages as permitted under Section 201-9.2 of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, in the aggregate amount of $134,021.00.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 56 above as though fully set forth herein.
Defendants’ conduct constitutes a material breach of their obligations under the Documents.
By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Warranty)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 59 above as though fully set forth herein.
Defendants’ conduct constitutes a material breach of their warranty obligations in connection with the Work.
By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 62 above as though fully set forth herein.
Defendants obtained at least $33,617.75 of plaintiff’s funds to which defendants have no legal or equitable right.
Defendants have unlawfully retained an amount of not less than $33,617.75 which properly belongs to plaintiff.
By reason of the foregoing, defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Common Law Fraud)
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 66 above as though fully set forth herein.
In accepting payments from plaintiff for services they did not provide and never intended to provide, defendants willfully defrauded plaintiff out of the sum of $33,617.75.
By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, as follows:
On the First Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $134,321.00, with interest thereon.
On the Second Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75, with interest thereon.
On the Third Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75, with interest thereon.
On the Fourth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75, with interest thereon.
On the Fifth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $33,617.75, with interest thereon.
For plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in this action.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Stroudsburg, Pa
November 2008
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF MONROE
www.cameronhomesonline.com
http://www.cameronhomes.net
bruce@cameronhomesonline.com
info@cameronhomesonline.com
jason@cameronhomesonline.com
bcameron1@epix.net
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=26
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=15
http://www.cameronhomes.net/bio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/portfolio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/historic_renovations.html
http://www.lwvlv.org/vg-norcoschls.htm
bruce cameron, mt bethel, builder
http://www.cameronhomes.net/
http://allentown.citysearch.com/profile/8853416/?brand=smx_yp-nc
http://www.yellowpages.com/exception/name_search/show?expansion_factor=4&from=qpibp-nonmi&search_context=Cameron-Homes-Construction-Inc&search_terms=Cameron+Homes+Construction+Inc
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-22/1051b.html
http://www.usarealty.net/Pocono_Builders.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/bio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/contact.html
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=115
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=15
www.cameronhomesonline.com
http://www.builders-directory.us/buildingcontractor-258343-Cameron%20Homes%20&%20Construction%20Inc/
www.bangorslaters.com/files/specialmeetingminutes121707.pdf
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=11
http://www.poconobuilders.org/members/index.php?module=listings&id=11
http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Cameron.Homes.And.Construction.Incorporated.570-897-7048
http://www.merchantcircle.com/directory/PA-Mount-Bethel/category/Real.Estate
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
http://www.cameronhomes.net/new_homes.html
http://www.yellowbot.com/cameron-homes-construction-mt-bethel-pa.html
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=new_homes_partners.showHomesResults&s_code=PA
http://www.weberdesigngroup.com/home-builders.php
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=new_homes_partners.showHomesResults&partner_type_id=SHB&s_code=ALL&resultsperpage=156¤t_sort_column=NAME¤t_sort_order=ASC&layout=print&letter=C
construction
bruce d. cameron
building lots available
home construction
pocono builder
pocono builders
pocono constructio
info@cameronhomesonline.com
bruce@cameronhomesonline.com
jason@cameronhomesonline.com
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-21/998b.html
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/slate-belt/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1289970315305440.xml&coll=3
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-22/1051b.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/
http://www.uppermtbethel.org/reports/supervisors-REG20071112Minutes.htm
http://www.poconosrealestate.ws/poconos_builders.htm
http://www.bangor.k12.pa.us/general.asp?id=3
http://www.bangor.k12.pa.us/general.asp?id=3
http://www.cameronhomes.net/bio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/portfolio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/new_homes.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/remodels_additions.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/historic_renovations.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
bruce@cameronhomesonline.com
jason@cameronhomesonline.com
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-21/998b.html
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/slate-belt/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1289970315305440.xml&coll=3
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-22/1051b.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/
http://www.uppermtbethel.org/reports/supervisors-REG20071112Minutes.htm
http://www.poconosrealestate.ws/poconos_builders.htm
http://www.bangor.k12.pa.us/general.asp?id=3
http://www.bangor.k12.pa.us/general.asp?id=3
http://www.cameronhomes.net/bio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/portfolio.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/new_homes.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/remodels_additions.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/historic_renovations.html
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
http://www.cameronhomes.net/building-lots-available
n
