Background
Angela Cetorelli hired Duell Action Builders LLC to replace her roof and gutters after owner Karl Jay Duell IV inspected her home and represented that the work would carry a five-year workmanship warranty. The written contract omitted both that warranty and the cancellation notice required by Ohio’s Home Solicitation Sales Act. Duell did not disclose that his company had no employees and would use subcontractors, and he later testified that he intentionally excluded the warranty without informing Cetorelli.
After Cetorelli paid $15,350, she reported defective roofing and gutter work. An independent roofer whom Duell asked to inspect the project refused to approve it and concluded that the roof and gutters needed to be redone. Cetorelli’s expert likewise identified numerous installation defects and recommended complete replacement. Following a bench trial on claims under the Home Solicitation Sales Act and Consumer Sales Practices Act, the trial court awarded $57,000 in treble damages and $66,218.50 in attorney fees, for a total judgment of $123,218.50.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that Cetorelli’s attempted cancellation under the Home Solicitation Sales Act did not prevent her from obtaining Consumer Sales Practices Act remedies for separate deceptive practices. Reading the statutes together, the court concluded that cancellation and a refund under the HSSA did not extinguish claims based on defective workmanship, undisclosed subcontracting, removal of the promised warranty, and failure to provide the statutory cancellation notice.
The court found sufficient support for treble damages because applicable administrative rules had already declared the relevant conduct deceptive, so Cetorelli was not required to identify a prior judicial decision addressing identical conduct. It also upheld consideration of testimony about Duell’s five-year warranty representation, concluding that the evidence established an independent statutory deceptive-practices claim rather than impermissibly varying the written contract. Duell could be held personally liable because he participated in and directed the deceptive acts.
The evidence supported full replacement damages rather than limited repairs, including testimony from Cetorelli’s expert and the independent roofer that the roof had been improperly installed and required replacement. The appellate court also upheld the attorney-fee award, rejecting the arguments that Cetorelli’s contingent-fee agreement made the award unenforceable or that the trial court was required to accept the defense fee expert’s proposed amount.
Key Takeaways
- An HSSA cancellation does not foreclose CSPA damages arising from distinct deceptive or unfair practices in the same home-improvement transaction.
- Treble damages may rest on conduct previously declared deceptive by an applicable Ohio administrative rule; an identical prior judicial decision is not always necessary.
- A company owner may face personal CSPA liability when the owner personally participates in or directs the deceptive conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision allows Ohio consumers to invoke the HSSA’s cancellation protections without forfeiting CSPA remedies for additional misconduct, including seriously defective work and deceptive warranty or subcontracting practices. It also places contractors on notice that statutory disclosures and administrative consumer-protection rules can support treble damages and personal liability.
For litigators, the opinion underscores the importance of separating an HSSA cancellation violation from independent CSPA violations and developing expert evidence on whether defective construction can be repaired or requires complete replacement.