PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh home rental and sale company which alleged that a local contractor committed breach of contract and fraud when it failed to complete an inventory list of improvement projects and provided subpar workmanship on the one item it did finish, has maintained its claims in the face of the defendant’s denials.
Premier Group Holdings, LLC first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 24 versus Man of the House Services (MOTH) and Thomas J. Layhue. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“On Aug. 8, 2021, Premier and MOTH entered into an oral agreement for home improvements to a rental property, owned by Premier, located at 301 Alice Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15210. MOTH is a licensed contractor with a contractor license number of 153864. Pursuant to an oral contract MOTH commenced work at the property on Aug. 31, 2021,” the suit said.
“Although, the property’s utilities were not turned on until April 23, 2022, MOTH did not have any issue working on the property while the utilities were shut off. MOTH required payments in advance, before commencing work on the property, which payments totaled $18,500.”
The suit added that the defendants failed to complete the full list of improvement projects, as detailed in an itemized invoice.
“The only home improvement that MOTH successfully completed was the removal of 17 old windows and installation of 17 new windows. All other work outlined in the invoice was either not completed or not done in a workmanlike manner. On Oct. 13, 2021, MOTH sent an email to Premier, stating that the work should be completed by Nov. 13, 2021,” the suit stated.
“MOTH’s contractor license expired in February 2022. Thereafter, MOTH ceased working on the property on July 19, 2022. Despite repeated demands, MOTH has refused to refund payment for the work they did not complete and the work that needs to be redone because of the shoddy workmanship.”
The defendants’ preliminary objections, filed on Oct. 25, countered that the plaintiff’s claims are insufficiently pled and supported.
“Plaintiff’s complaint merely alleges that ‘all other work outlines in Exhibit 1 was either not completed or not done in a workmanlike manner.’ The defendant is unable to ascertain from plaintiff’s complaint the nature of the construction that is alleged to be incomplete or the defects with the construction that was completed. Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support a theory of piercing the corporate veil. Further, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cause of action against defendant Thomas Layhue,” according to the objections.
“Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits the filing of preliminary objections based on the failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court. A plaintiff must set forth each cause of action against each defendant in a separate count under a separate heading and, failure to do so, will cause the complaint to be stricken for not complying with this requirement. In the instant case, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a). Punitive damages may only be awarded under limited circumstances. Based upon the averments in the complaint and giving plaintiff all reasonable inferences therefrom, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege any facts which would warrant the imposition of punitive damages.”
Two further amended complaints filed on Nov. 4 and Nov. 10 changed the listing of the lone defendant in the action to TJ’s Affordable Grass Cutting, LLC (doing business as “Man Of The House Services”).
The defendant then answered the complaint on Dec. 13, charging that it was required to purchase a generator to even begin work on the property, and construction was forced to stop in December due to a lack of heat in the building, yet the plaintiff failed to provide working utilities. The defendant also denied that it required all payments in advance before commencing work, only requiring a one-third down payment in advance.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims for which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages, if any. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by illegality, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, consent, truth and waiver, fraud or bad faith, estoppel and failure of consideration, consent and laches,” the answer stated.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred by settlement and release, justification, equity, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, license, privilege, mutual mistake and impossibility of performance.”
UPDATE
In a Jan. 17 reply to the defendant’s new matter, the plaintiff maintained their claims.
“Paragraph 42 of defendants’ new matter is an incorporation clause to which no response is required and is therefore denied. Paragraphs 43 through 63 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore denied,” the reply stated.
This was accompanied by a request for production of documents, in four aspects:
• All documents and/or things (including, but not limited to, any electronic communications or other items) for the Alice Street home renovation project (including, but not limited to the defendant’s dealings with Premier, project file, and corporate records related to the Alice Street home renovation project);
• All photographs and/or video depictions of the Alice Street home renovation project;
• All records and/or notes regarding the defendant’s course of dealings with Premier, project file and corporate records related to the Alice Street home renovation project; and
• All documents comprising the defendant’s project file for the Alice Street home renovation project.
For counts of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and for such other or further relief to which the Court may find them entitled.
The plaintiff is represented by Paul A. Luvara of the Law Offices of Paul A. Luvara, in Carnegie.
The defendants are represented by Shane M. Gannon of Watson Mundorff, in Connellsville.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-012080
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com