Contractor Roof Fraud: $222K Treble Damages

Home improvement disputes are among the most common consumer complaints in Bucks County. When a contractor does poor work, homeowners often feel they have limited recourse. But Brandt v. Master Force Construction Corp., Nos. 1080 & 1081 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Apr. 21, 2020), a non-precedential memorandum decision citable only for its persuasive value under Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), shows the teeth Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws can bring to these disputes.

The Facts

The Brandts hired Master Force Construction to replace their roof under a June 2012 contract. Master Force amended the contract to install a standing seam metal roof instead of the originally specified metal shingle roof, but never disclosed that it would not perform the work itself. It subcontracted the installation to Keith Wilton, who presented himself to the Brandts as a Master Force employee. Master Force also charged the Brandts an extra $2,000 for gutters and gutter covers that were already included in the contract price.

The roof leaked repeatedly starting the same year it was installed. When the Brandts contacted Master Force, they were told to deal with Wilton directly. The leaks continued for years; the Brandts eventually had the roof torn off and replaced. At trial, the Brandts’ expert testified that the standing seam roof was the wrong system for their low-slope roof, violated the manufacturer’s own installation requirements, and violated the building code in effect, and that Wilton had installed it improperly on top of that.

The Result

The trial court found Master Force liable on four separate HICPA grounds, 73 P.S. section 517.1 et seq., and separately liable under the UTPCPL’s catch-all deceptive-conduct provision, 73 P.S. section 201-2(4). It awarded the Brandts treble damages of $222,648.15, three times their $74,216.05 in itemized actual damages (repair and replacement costs, not the original contract price), plus attorney fees of $195,159.20.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed two of the four HICPA violations and reversed the other two:

• Affirmed: Master Force violated HICPA by charging the Brandts $2,000 for gutter work already included in the contract price, 73 P.S. section 517.9(8)(iii).
• Affirmed: Master Force violated HICPA by accepting the contract with no intention of performing the work itself, since it had no employees and routinely subcontracted every job without ever disclosing that to homeowners, 73 P.S. section 517.9(8)(ii).
• Reversed: The court held the evidence did not support finding that Master Force violated HICPA’s subcontractor-disclosure requirement, 73 P.S. section 517.7(a)(10), because nothing in the record showed Master Force knew, when it signed the contract in June 2012, that Wilton specifically would do the work.
• Reversed: The court held Master Force did not abandon its duty under the contract warranty, 73 P.S. section 517.9(5), because it did respond when the Brandts first reported leaks, by directing them to Wilton, who attempted repairs, and the Brandts never went back to Master Force afterward.

The reversal of those two findings did not change the outcome. The Superior Court separately affirmed the UTPCPL violation itself, based on the credited expert testimony about the improperly installed, code-violating roof, and any HICPA violation is independently deemed a UTPCPL violation, 73 P.S. section 517.10. With two HICPA violations and the UTPCPL violation still standing, the full damages award, the treble damages, and the attorney fee award were all affirmed as originally entered. Judgment affirmed.

Why This Matters

Brandt illustrates several important points for homeowners dealing with contractor problems.

The damages can be substantial, and they can survive even a partial reversal on appeal. The Superior Court threw out two of the four violations the trial court found, and the homeowners still kept the full $222,648.15 in treble damages and $195,159.20 in fees, because the remaining violations independently supported the same award.

What makes a case strong is often not the poor workmanship itself, but what the contractor did or failed to disclose, and whether it can prove it responded to complaints. Here, the contractor’s failure to disclose that it would not personally perform the work, and evidence of a pattern of always subcontracting without telling homeowners, survived appeal; a narrower disclosure claim tied to what the contractor specifically knew at signing, and a warranty-abandonment claim, did not, because the homeowners could not show the contractor ignored them.

Attorney fees are recoverable, too. The UTPCPL lets the court order the contractor to pay your costs and reasonable attorney fees on top of damages. That changes the economics of pursuing a contractor who did $50,000 in damage. The award is discretionary, not automatic, and the court decides what fee is reasonable.

Protecting Yourself

Before hiring a contractor for a significant home improvement project, verify that their contract complies with HICPA’s requirements. The contract should identify the contractor, include a start and completion date, describe the work and materials, state the total price, and include notice of your right to cancel. If the contractor will use subcontractors, that should be disclosed. If any of these elements are missing, you may have grounds for a HICPA claim before the first nail is driven.

If you are already dealing with a contractor dispute, contact our office to evaluate your options.

Legal and factual content on this page was last verified: Sept. 2026. If you are reading this significantly after that date, confirm key provisions with current statute text or contact our office.