Preview
N
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex.
Docket Number
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
14-1443
CIVIL ACTION NO.
WILLIAM H. LORD and SARAH B. LORD,’
Plaintiffs,
V.
TIMOTHY ROBERT HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM
FRESH COAT OF SHREWSBURY,
PAUL S. JOHNSON d/b/a JOHNSON
COPPER COMPANY and FATATI HOME
REMODELING CORP,
Defendants
5/31/2024 RECEIVED
PARTIES
1 The plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord (the “plaintiffs”), husband and
wife, are individuals who own and reside at 29 Baker Street, Town of Foxborough, County of
Norfolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Property”).
2. The defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury
(“Fresh Coat”), is a limited liability company duly organized under, and existing pursuant to, the
laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a usual place of business located at 6 Rolling
Hill Road, Town of Shrewsbury, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
3 The defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company (“Johnson
Copper”), is an individual with a usual place of business located at 52A Medway Road, Town of
Milford, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
4. The defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp (“Fatati”), is a corporation duly
organized under, and existing pursuant to, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
a usual place of business located at 39 High Street, Town of Hudson, County of Middlesex,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
FACTS
5 At all times material hereto, the Property has been improved by a single-family
home situated in the Town of Foxborough Historic District.
6 On or about April 22, 2023, Timothy R. Stanley of Fresh Coat and Fabio Morais
Da Silva of Fatati visited the plaintiffs’ home in order to provide estimates for cleaning and
painting (Fresh Coat) and carpentry work (Fatati).
7. On or about April 28, 2023, Fresh Coat provided a quote to the plaintiffs in the
total sum of $27,608.09 (the “Fresh Coat Quote”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and
incorporated by reference.
8 In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat proposed, among other things, power
washing all surfaces to be painted.
9 According to the Fresh Coat Quote, the aforesaid power washing process involved
application of “Simple Green House & Siding Cleaner while thoroughly power washing all
surfaces to be painted to remove any dirt that may affect adhesion . . .”
10. In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat promised to the plaintiffs, in part, to
“carefully screen and hire only skilled painters who are experienced professionals.”
11. In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat represented to the plaintiffs, in part, that
“[a]ll work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to Painting Contractors
Association (PCA) within accepted-industry standards . . .”
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
12. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the
plaintiffs informed Fresh Coat and Fatati that their home is situated in a historic district and
subject to its bylaws, which Fresh Coat and Fatati acknowledged.
13. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the
plaintiffs mentioned that they sought and received approval from the Town of Foxborough
Historical Commission to install twelve copper dormers, four eyelids over the four oculus
windows located on the turret and a copper spire at the top of the turret.
14. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh
Coat stated to the plaintiffs that it would serve as the primary point of contact.
15. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the
plaintiffs were told that Fresh Coat and Fatati enjoyed a strong working relationship from
numerous past jobs, in which Fresh Coat acted as the overall manager of the process and general
contractor.
16. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh
Coat made representations and assurances to the plaintiffs concerning Fatati’s excellent work and
presented them with photographs depicting its work.
17. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh
Coat told the plaintiffs that it planned to start its work on May 22, 2023, taking fourteen days to
clean, scrape, sand and paint the house.
18. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fatati
provided a verbal estimate to the plaintiffs for its carpentry work based on anything that Fresh
Coat found.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
19. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fatati
told the plaintiffs that it planned to start its work on May 8, 2023.
20. On or about May 7, 2023, Fresh Coat sent two of its employees, representatives or
agents to the Property in order to remove dirt and debris from the house and to identify any wood
requiring repair in preparation for Fatati’s carpentry work.
21. On or about May 7, 2023, Fresh Coat’s employees, representatives or agents used
a power washer with 3,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) of water pressure to remove surface dirt
and debris from the roof, dormers, turret, front and rear porches, garage and siding of the house
situated on the Property.
22. Fresh Coat’s usage of the aforesaid high-power washer caused damage in multiple
places to the plaintiffs’ home, including but not limited to, its siding, windows, roof shingles and
exterior ornaments.
23. As a result of Fresh Coat’s employees’, representatives’ or agents’ improper use
of a power washer on the plaintiffs’ home, water penetrated through closed windows, collected
on windowsills and poured inside the house, which introduced copious amounts of dirt, grime
and water into delicate areas of the home.
24. In response to being made aware of the aforesaid damage to the plaintiffs’ home,
Fresh Coat and Fatati assured the plaintiffs that Fatati would handle it.
25. On or about May 10, 2023, Fatati inspected the Property to identify areas
requiring repair or replacement as a result of the damage caused by Fresh Coat’s employees’,
agents’ or representatives’ improper usage of a pressure washer.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
26. After Fatati requested an initial payment of $7,000.00, which the plaintiffs
promptly tendered and Fatati accepted, Fatati then started its repairs on the damaged shingles on
the mansard roof.
27. On or about May 15, 2023, Fatati began its carpentry work, during which Fatati
and/or its employees, representatives or agents damaged the dormer pediment boxes on either
side of the window where the barrel dormers terminate and also damaged the rubber lining near
the windowsills and roof turret.
28. Fatati informed the plaintiffs that it would replace the boxes with pressure-treated
wood, but as time progressed, Fatati’s supervision and presence dwindled, leaving only two
unsupervised workers from its business onsite.
29. The plaintiffs expressed their dissatisfaction with Fatati’s efforts to correct the
damages, which neither aligned with the original design nor the Town of Foxborough Historical
District Commission’s Bylaws.
30. The plaintiffs sent photographs to Fatati of the original wood profile for the
dormer boxes juxtaposed with the boxes that it fabricated.
31. Fatati assured the plaintiffs thatit would correct the issue, but by May 19, 2023,
Fatati and its workers no longer appeared at the Property in order to fix the damages.
32. On or about May 24, 2023, the plaintiffs hired Johnson Copper to start installation
of the copper in accordance with the plan approved by the Town of Foxborough Historical
District Commission.
33. On or about May 29, 2023, Johnson Copper told the plaintiffs that his workers
witnessed Fatati’s employees damage the EPDM rubber belting in many places along the roof’s
cornice.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
34, The plaintiffs reached out to Fatati for an explanation, but Fatati failed, refused
and neglected to respond.
35. The plaintiffs then discovered that during Fatati’s attempt to correct the damages
caused by Fresh Coat’s power washers, the replacement cedar shingles which it installed on the
roof were not roofing grade (in fact, they were underlayment grade and were, therefore,
inadequate) and the shingles were face-nailed with non-galvanized roofing nails, which rusted
and bled down the side of the roof.
36. On or about May 29, 2023, the plaintiffs called Fresh Coat to express their
dissatisfaction with Fatati’s efforts to repair the damages which Fresh Coat caused as well as the
damages that Fatati separately caused.
37. On or about May 29, 2023, the plaintiffs and Fresh Coat mutually agreed to
terminate any agreement between them, and the plaintiffs instructed Fatati to collect its
equipment from the Property.
38. On or about June 2, 2023, Fatati’s employees left much of the roof at the Property
exposed to the weather with little to no water protection and left behind materials purchased for
the job (i.e., nails and wood).
39. During the course of his work, Johnson Copper damaged at least two of the
twelve dormers and surrounding shingles on the plaintiffs’ roof.
40. On June 5, 2023, Johnson Copper issued an invoice to the plaintiffs in the total
sum of $52,300.00, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference.
Al. The plaintiffs fully paid Johnson Copper, and Johnson Copper accepted, all sums
reflected on his aforesaid invoice.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
42. During heavy rainstorms on June 9, 2023, July 11, 2023 and July 14, 2023,
several new roof leaks into the plaintiffs’ home appeared, which leaks were so severe that the
second-floor bedroom floors began to warp and buckle.
43. As a result of the faulty workmanship of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper,
all as heretofore described, water was permitted to migrate from the roof to the bedrooms in at
least three areas and trickled down to the first floor and the basement.
44. As a result of the faulty workmanship of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper,
all as heretofore described, water stains and drip tracks were found along the plaster walls and
ceiling in each affected room at the Property.
45, After finishing its work on June 9, 2023, Johnson Copper returned to the
plaintiffs’ home in an effort to remedy the damages that he created.
46. Without offering or guaranteeing a more permanent solution, Johnson Copper
agreed to temporarily fix the leaks by applying an ice and water shield underlayment to cover the
damaged areas around each dormer but did not replace all of the shingles which he damaged
during the installation process.
47. Neither Fatati nor Johnson Copper applied for, or secured, any permits from the _
Town of Foxborough in connection with their work at the Property. C
48. Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper represented to the plaintiffs that all of their
work would be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, upon which material
representations the plaintiffs reasonably relied.
49. Having been satisfied by, and in reliance upon, Fresh Coat’s, Fatati’s and Johnson
Copper’s aforesaid material representations, the plaintiffs engaged Fresh Coat, Fatati and
Johnson Copper to perform painting, roofing and carpentry work to their home.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
50. As a result of the negligence of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper, the
building situated at the Property sustained damages in the total sum of $183,625.00. A copy of
the proposal prepared by Thompson Properties dated April 29, 2024 is attached as Exhibit 3 and
incorporated by reference.
Sl. Atall times material hereto, Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper were
“contractors” subject to the requirements of G.L. c. 142A (the “Home Improvement Contractor
Act”) as they each own and/or operate a contracting business which, through themselves or
others, undertook, offered to undertake, purported to have the capacity to undertake or submitted
a bid for, residential contracting work at the Property involving its reconstruction, alteration,
renovation, repair, modernization, conversion and/or improvement.
52. Despite being “contractors” subject to the requirements of the Home
Improvement Contractor Act, Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper failed, refused and
neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act by, among
other things, (1) operating their contracting businesses without a certificate of registration issued
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(1) (Fatati and
Johnson Copper only), (2) abandoning or failing to perform fully, without justification, the work
required by their respective contracts in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(2), (3) making material
misrepresentations to the plaintiffs in the procurement of their respective contracts in violation of
GL. c. 142A, § 17(4), (4) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include
their respective registration numbers (required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(2)) or the date(s) on
which the work thereunder was scheduled to begin and the date(s) on which the work was
scheduled to be substantially completed (as required by GL. c. 142A, § 2(a)(3) (Fatati and
Johnson Copper only), (5) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
a time schedule of payments to be made thereunder (as required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(6)) and
requiring and/or receiving a final payment before the work was completed to the satisfaction of
all parties (as prohibited by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(6)), including the plaintiffs (Fatati and Johnson
Copper only), (6) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include a “clear
and conspicuous notice” regarding, among other things, the registration requirements of
contractors and subcontractors, their respective registration numbers, the plaintiffs’ three-day
cancellation rights and all warranties and the plaintiffs’ rights under the Home Improvement
Contractor Act (as required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(8)) (Fatati and Johnson Copper only), and
(7) failing to comply with the building laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or the
Town of Foxborough in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(10), all of which constitute a violation of
G.L. c. 93A.
53. On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs sent a demand for relief to Fresh Coat, Fatati
and Johnson Copper, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4 and incorporated by reference.
54. On February 16, 2024, Fresh Coat and Johnson Copper, through their respective
representatives, conducted an inspection (of which Fatati was made aware but chose not to
attend) of the roof and other affected areas at the Property.
55. On April 30, 2024, the plaintiffs sent a demand for relief to Fresh Coat, Fatati and
Johnson Copper pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5 and
incorporated by reference.
56. Despite repeated demand and inspection of the roof and other affected areas at the
Property, Fresh Coat, Johnson Copper and Fatati have failed, refused and neglected to indemnify
the plaintiffs for any of the damages which they negligently caused to the home situated at
Property and/or otherwise make a reasonable offer of settlement.
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
57. As a result of Fatati’s and Johnson Copper’s conduct, as described heretofore, the
plaintiffs were caused to incur damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
COUNTI
(Breach of Contract - Fresh Coat)
58. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 57 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
59. Fresh Coat materially breached its contract with the plaintiffs.
60. As a result of Fresh Coat’s material breach of its contract with the plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of
Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further
relief as the court may deem equitable and just.
COUNT II
(Negligence — Fresh Coat)
61. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 60 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
62. Fresh Coat owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform its cleaning and painting
services in a professional and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs.
63. Fresh Coat breached its aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently performed
its cleaning and painting services at the Property.
64. As a result of Fresh Coat’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the plaintiffs
sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses.
10
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of
Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further
relief as the court may deem equitable and just.
COUNT DL
(Negligent Misrepresentation — Fresh Coat)
{
65. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 64 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
66. Fresh Coat negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs concerning,
among other things, (a) its ability to complete the requisite cleaning and painting at the Property
in a competent, timely and workmanlike manner, (b) the promises and representations made in
the Fresh Coat Quote, as described heretofore, and (c) Fatati’s excellent work and its oversight of
same.
67. Fresh Coat knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would rely
upon its aforesaid representations.
68. The plaintiffs relied upon Fresh Coat’s aforesaid representations.
69. The plaintiffs initially discovered Fresh Coat’s aforesaid misrepresentations
following the performance of its shoddy and inferior workmanship.
70. As a result of Fresh Coat’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the plaintiffs
suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of
Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further
relief as the court may deem equitable and just.
Il
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
COUNT IV
(Violation of G.L. c. 142A — Fresh Coat)
71. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
72. At all times material hereto, Fresh Coat was a “contractor” subject to the
requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act.
73. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein, Fresh
Coat failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement
Contractor Act.
TA. As a result of Fresh Coat’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act,
the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of
Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further
relief as the court may deem equitable and just.
COUNT V
(Violation of G.L. c. 93A — Fresh Coat)
7. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 74 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
76. Fresh Coat is engaged in trade or commerce.
77. Fresh Coat’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the
‘
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
12
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
78. Fresh Coat’s conduct, including but not limited to, its violations of the Home
Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive
practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
79. As a result of Fresh Coat’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the
plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of
Shrewsbury, as follows:
a for actual damages;
b. for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendant’s,
Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, willful or
knowing violations of the Act; and
for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
COUNT.VI
(Breach of Contract - Fatati)
80. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 79 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
81. Fatati materially breached its contract with the plaintiffs.
82. As a result of Fatati’s material breach of its contract with the plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory
damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem
equitable and just.
13
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
COUNT VII
(Negligence — Fatati)
83. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 82 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
84. Fatati owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform its carpentry work in a professional
and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs.
85. Fatati breached its aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently performed its
carpentry work at the Property.
86. As a result of Fatati’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the plaintiffs
sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory
damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem
equitable and just.
COUNT VT
(Negligent Misrepresentation — Fatati)
87. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 86 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
88. Fatati negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs concerning,
among other things, its ability to complete the requisite carpentry work at the Property in a
competent, timely and workmanlike manner.
89. Fatati knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would rely upon
its aforesaid representations.
90. The plaintiffs relied upon Fatati’s aforesaid representations.
14
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
91. The plaintiffs initially discovered Fatati’s aforesaid misrepresentations following
the performance of its shoddy and inferior workmanship.
92. As a result of Fatati’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the plaintiffs
suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory
damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem
equitable and just.
COUNT IX
(Violation of G.L. ¢. 142A — Fatati)
93. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 92 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
94. At all times material hereto, Fatati was a “contractor” subject to the requirements
of the Home Improvement Contractor Act.
95. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein, Fatati
failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement
Contractor Act.
96. As a result of Fatati’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, the
plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory
damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem
equitable and just.
15
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
COUNT X
(Violation of G.L. c. 93A — Fatati)
97. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 96 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
98. Fatati is engaged in trade or commerce.
99. Fatati’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
100. Fatati’s conduct, including but not limited to, its violations of the Home
Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive
practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
101. As a result of Fatati’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the plaintiffs
have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, as follows:
a. for actual damages;
b for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendant’s,
Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, willful or knowing violations of the Act;
and
for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
COUNT XI
(Breach of Contract
— Johnson Copper)
102. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 101 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
103. Johnson Copper materially breached his contract with the plaintiffs.
16
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex.
Docket Number
104. As a result of Johnson Copper’s material breach of his contract with the plaintiffs,
the plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for
compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court
may deem equitable and just.
COUNT XII
(Negligence — Johnson Copper)
105. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 104 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
106. Johnson Copper owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform his roofing work in a
professional and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs.
107. Johnson Copper breached his aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently
performed its roofing work at the Property.
108. As a result of Johnson Copper’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the
plaintiffs sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for
compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court
may deem equitable and just.
COUNT XVII
(Negligent Misrepresentation — Johnson Copper)
109. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
17
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
110. Johnson Copper negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs
concerning, among other things, his ability to complete the requisite roofing work at the Property
in a competent, timely and workmanlike manner.
lll. Johnson Copper knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would
rely upon his aforesaid representations.
112. The plaintiffs relied upon Johnson Copper’s aforesaid representations.
113. The plaintiffs initially discovered Johnson Copper’s aforesaid misrepresentations
following the performance of his shoddy and inferior workmanship.
114. As a result of Johnson Copper’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the
plaintiffs suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for
compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court
may deem equitable and just.
COUNT XIV
(Violation of G.L. c. 142A
— Johnson Copper)
115. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 114 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
116. At all times material hereto, Johnson Copper was a “contractor” subject to the
requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act.
117. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein,
Johnson Copper failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home
Improvement Contractor Act.
18
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
118. As a result of Johnson Copper’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor
Act, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for
compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court
may deem equitable and just.
~
COUNT XV
(Violation of G.L. ¢c. 93A — Johnson Copper)
119. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 of the Complaint and Jury
Claim as if fully set forth herein.
120. Johnson Copper is engaged in trade or commerce.
121. Johnson Copper’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
122. Johnson Copper’s conduct, including but not limited to, his violations of the
Home Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive
practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
123. As a result of Johnson Copper’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the
plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the
entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, as
follows:
for actual damages;
for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendants,
Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, willful or knowing
violations of the Act; and
19
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
c. for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
JURY DEMAND
The plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, demand a trial by jury on all counts so
triable.
WILLIAM H. LORD and SARAH B. LORD,
By their attorney,
/s/ Seth H. Hochbaum
SETH H. HOCHBAUM - BBO NO. 568118
REGNANTE STERIO LLP
401 Edgewater Place, Suite 630
Wakefield, MA 01880-6210
hochbaum@regnante.com
(781) 246-2525 (ext. 214)
Dated: May 31, 2024
20
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
‘Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
EXHIBIT #1
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number
aga SHERWIN
i i (2
iy.
ting Done RIGHT!
eQuote - Baker exterior
Project: Customer:
4
Baker exterior William Lord Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury
Address: 29 Address: 29 Shrewsbury, MA, USA, SHERWIN
Baker Street, Baker Street, Shrewsbury, MA, United States ILLIAMS.
Foxborough, Foxborough, (508) 715-3755
Foxborough, Foxborough, Tim Stanley -
MA, United MA, United tstanley@freshcoatpainters.com
States States
Email: William. Email: William. 206895 nae ut
h.lord@icloud. h.lord@icloud.c
com om
About Fresh Coat
Printed On: 07/27/2023 08:10:20 PM 1 of 18
Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM
‘Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number "
he
Ge no
SHERWIN
Whuams,
AT, bs
eh
i@ i
tinting Done RIGHT!
Fresh Coat Painters' History & Promise
With services in more than 100 major cities across North America, Fresh Coat's experienced business owners
and their professional painters understand how important your surroundings are to you. We know whether
we're painting the interior or exterior of your home or the inside and outside of your office, condominium, or
apartment building, you expect the very best service at a competitive price.
It's our goal to provide you with an exceptionally positive experience from the time we deliver your guaranteed
written quote
Preview
N Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex. Docket Number COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT 14-1443 CIVIL ACTION NO. WILLIAM H. LORD and SARAH B. LORD,’ Plaintiffs, V. TIMOTHY ROBERT HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM FRESH COAT OF SHREWSBURY, PAUL S. JOHNSON d/b/a JOHNSON COPPER COMPANY and FATATI HOME REMODELING CORP, Defendants 5/31/2024 RECEIVED PARTIES 1 The plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord (the “plaintiffs”), husband and wife, are individuals who own and reside at 29 Baker Street, Town of Foxborough, County of Norfolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Property”). 2. The defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury (“Fresh Coat”), is a limited liability company duly organized under, and existing pursuant to, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a usual place of business located at 6 Rolling Hill Road, Town of Shrewsbury, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 3 The defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company (“Johnson Copper”), is an individual with a usual place of business located at 52A Medway Road, Town of Milford, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 4. The defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp (“Fatati”), is a corporation duly organized under, and existing pursuant to, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number a usual place of business located at 39 High Street, Town of Hudson, County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. FACTS 5 At all times material hereto, the Property has been improved by a single-family home situated in the Town of Foxborough Historic District. 6 On or about April 22, 2023, Timothy R. Stanley of Fresh Coat and Fabio Morais Da Silva of Fatati visited the plaintiffs’ home in order to provide estimates for cleaning and painting (Fresh Coat) and carpentry work (Fatati). 7. On or about April 28, 2023, Fresh Coat provided a quote to the plaintiffs in the total sum of $27,608.09 (the “Fresh Coat Quote”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference. 8 In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat proposed, among other things, power washing all surfaces to be painted. 9 According to the Fresh Coat Quote, the aforesaid power washing process involved application of “Simple Green House & Siding Cleaner while thoroughly power washing all surfaces to be painted to remove any dirt that may affect adhesion . . .” 10. In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat promised to the plaintiffs, in part, to “carefully screen and hire only skilled painters who are experienced professionals.” 11. In the Fresh Coat Quote, Fresh Coat represented to the plaintiffs, in part, that “[a]ll work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to Painting Contractors Association (PCA) within accepted-industry standards . . .” Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 12. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the plaintiffs informed Fresh Coat and Fatati that their home is situated in a historic district and subject to its bylaws, which Fresh Coat and Fatati acknowledged. 13. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the plaintiffs mentioned that they sought and received approval from the Town of Foxborough Historical Commission to install twelve copper dormers, four eyelids over the four oculus windows located on the turret and a copper spire at the top of the turret. 14. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh Coat stated to the plaintiffs that it would serve as the primary point of contact. 15. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, the plaintiffs were told that Fresh Coat and Fatati enjoyed a strong working relationship from numerous past jobs, in which Fresh Coat acted as the overall manager of the process and general contractor. 16. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh Coat made representations and assurances to the plaintiffs concerning Fatati’s excellent work and presented them with photographs depicting its work. 17. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fresh Coat told the plaintiffs that it planned to start its work on May 22, 2023, taking fourteen days to clean, scrape, sand and paint the house. 18. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fatati provided a verbal estimate to the plaintiffs for its carpentry work based on anything that Fresh Coat found. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 19. During Fresh Coat’s and Fatati’s visit to the Property on April 22, 2023, Fatati told the plaintiffs that it planned to start its work on May 8, 2023. 20. On or about May 7, 2023, Fresh Coat sent two of its employees, representatives or agents to the Property in order to remove dirt and debris from the house and to identify any wood requiring repair in preparation for Fatati’s carpentry work. 21. On or about May 7, 2023, Fresh Coat’s employees, representatives or agents used a power washer with 3,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) of water pressure to remove surface dirt and debris from the roof, dormers, turret, front and rear porches, garage and siding of the house situated on the Property. 22. Fresh Coat’s usage of the aforesaid high-power washer caused damage in multiple places to the plaintiffs’ home, including but not limited to, its siding, windows, roof shingles and exterior ornaments. 23. As a result of Fresh Coat’s employees’, representatives’ or agents’ improper use of a power washer on the plaintiffs’ home, water penetrated through closed windows, collected on windowsills and poured inside the house, which introduced copious amounts of dirt, grime and water into delicate areas of the home. 24. In response to being made aware of the aforesaid damage to the plaintiffs’ home, Fresh Coat and Fatati assured the plaintiffs that Fatati would handle it. 25. On or about May 10, 2023, Fatati inspected the Property to identify areas requiring repair or replacement as a result of the damage caused by Fresh Coat’s employees’, agents’ or representatives’ improper usage of a pressure washer. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 26. After Fatati requested an initial payment of $7,000.00, which the plaintiffs promptly tendered and Fatati accepted, Fatati then started its repairs on the damaged shingles on the mansard roof. 27. On or about May 15, 2023, Fatati began its carpentry work, during which Fatati and/or its employees, representatives or agents damaged the dormer pediment boxes on either side of the window where the barrel dormers terminate and also damaged the rubber lining near the windowsills and roof turret. 28. Fatati informed the plaintiffs that it would replace the boxes with pressure-treated wood, but as time progressed, Fatati’s supervision and presence dwindled, leaving only two unsupervised workers from its business onsite. 29. The plaintiffs expressed their dissatisfaction with Fatati’s efforts to correct the damages, which neither aligned with the original design nor the Town of Foxborough Historical District Commission’s Bylaws. 30. The plaintiffs sent photographs to Fatati of the original wood profile for the dormer boxes juxtaposed with the boxes that it fabricated. 31. Fatati assured the plaintiffs thatit would correct the issue, but by May 19, 2023, Fatati and its workers no longer appeared at the Property in order to fix the damages. 32. On or about May 24, 2023, the plaintiffs hired Johnson Copper to start installation of the copper in accordance with the plan approved by the Town of Foxborough Historical District Commission. 33. On or about May 29, 2023, Johnson Copper told the plaintiffs that his workers witnessed Fatati’s employees damage the EPDM rubber belting in many places along the roof’s cornice. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 34, The plaintiffs reached out to Fatati for an explanation, but Fatati failed, refused and neglected to respond. 35. The plaintiffs then discovered that during Fatati’s attempt to correct the damages caused by Fresh Coat’s power washers, the replacement cedar shingles which it installed on the roof were not roofing grade (in fact, they were underlayment grade and were, therefore, inadequate) and the shingles were face-nailed with non-galvanized roofing nails, which rusted and bled down the side of the roof. 36. On or about May 29, 2023, the plaintiffs called Fresh Coat to express their dissatisfaction with Fatati’s efforts to repair the damages which Fresh Coat caused as well as the damages that Fatati separately caused. 37. On or about May 29, 2023, the plaintiffs and Fresh Coat mutually agreed to terminate any agreement between them, and the plaintiffs instructed Fatati to collect its equipment from the Property. 38. On or about June 2, 2023, Fatati’s employees left much of the roof at the Property exposed to the weather with little to no water protection and left behind materials purchased for the job (i.e., nails and wood). 39. During the course of his work, Johnson Copper damaged at least two of the twelve dormers and surrounding shingles on the plaintiffs’ roof. 40. On June 5, 2023, Johnson Copper issued an invoice to the plaintiffs in the total sum of $52,300.00, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference. Al. The plaintiffs fully paid Johnson Copper, and Johnson Copper accepted, all sums reflected on his aforesaid invoice. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 42. During heavy rainstorms on June 9, 2023, July 11, 2023 and July 14, 2023, several new roof leaks into the plaintiffs’ home appeared, which leaks were so severe that the second-floor bedroom floors began to warp and buckle. 43. As a result of the faulty workmanship of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper, all as heretofore described, water was permitted to migrate from the roof to the bedrooms in at least three areas and trickled down to the first floor and the basement. 44. As a result of the faulty workmanship of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper, all as heretofore described, water stains and drip tracks were found along the plaster walls and ceiling in each affected room at the Property. 45, After finishing its work on June 9, 2023, Johnson Copper returned to the plaintiffs’ home in an effort to remedy the damages that he created. 46. Without offering or guaranteeing a more permanent solution, Johnson Copper agreed to temporarily fix the leaks by applying an ice and water shield underlayment to cover the damaged areas around each dormer but did not replace all of the shingles which he damaged during the installation process. 47. Neither Fatati nor Johnson Copper applied for, or secured, any permits from the _ Town of Foxborough in connection with their work at the Property. C 48. Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper represented to the plaintiffs that all of their work would be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, upon which material representations the plaintiffs reasonably relied. 49. Having been satisfied by, and in reliance upon, Fresh Coat’s, Fatati’s and Johnson Copper’s aforesaid material representations, the plaintiffs engaged Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper to perform painting, roofing and carpentry work to their home. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 50. As a result of the negligence of Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper, the building situated at the Property sustained damages in the total sum of $183,625.00. A copy of the proposal prepared by Thompson Properties dated April 29, 2024 is attached as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference. Sl. Atall times material hereto, Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper were “contractors” subject to the requirements of G.L. c. 142A (the “Home Improvement Contractor Act”) as they each own and/or operate a contracting business which, through themselves or others, undertook, offered to undertake, purported to have the capacity to undertake or submitted a bid for, residential contracting work at the Property involving its reconstruction, alteration, renovation, repair, modernization, conversion and/or improvement. 52. Despite being “contractors” subject to the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act by, among other things, (1) operating their contracting businesses without a certificate of registration issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(1) (Fatati and Johnson Copper only), (2) abandoning or failing to perform fully, without justification, the work required by their respective contracts in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(2), (3) making material misrepresentations to the plaintiffs in the procurement of their respective contracts in violation of GL. c. 142A, § 17(4), (4) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include their respective registration numbers (required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(2)) or the date(s) on which the work thereunder was scheduled to begin and the date(s) on which the work was scheduled to be substantially completed (as required by GL. c. 142A, § 2(a)(3) (Fatati and Johnson Copper only), (5) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number a time schedule of payments to be made thereunder (as required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(6)) and requiring and/or receiving a final payment before the work was completed to the satisfaction of all parties (as prohibited by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(6)), including the plaintiffs (Fatati and Johnson Copper only), (6) preparing and issuing their respective contracts, which fail to include a “clear and conspicuous notice” regarding, among other things, the registration requirements of contractors and subcontractors, their respective registration numbers, the plaintiffs’ three-day cancellation rights and all warranties and the plaintiffs’ rights under the Home Improvement Contractor Act (as required by G.L. c. 142A, § 2(a)(8)) (Fatati and Johnson Copper only), and (7) failing to comply with the building laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or the Town of Foxborough in violation of G.L. c. 142A, § 17(10), all of which constitute a violation of G.L. c. 93A. 53. On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs sent a demand for relief to Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4 and incorporated by reference. 54. On February 16, 2024, Fresh Coat and Johnson Copper, through their respective representatives, conducted an inspection (of which Fatati was made aware but chose not to attend) of the roof and other affected areas at the Property. 55. On April 30, 2024, the plaintiffs sent a demand for relief to Fresh Coat, Fatati and Johnson Copper pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5 and incorporated by reference. 56. Despite repeated demand and inspection of the roof and other affected areas at the Property, Fresh Coat, Johnson Copper and Fatati have failed, refused and neglected to indemnify the plaintiffs for any of the damages which they negligently caused to the home situated at Property and/or otherwise make a reasonable offer of settlement. Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 57. As a result of Fatati’s and Johnson Copper’s conduct, as described heretofore, the plaintiffs were caused to incur damages, attorney’s fees and costs. COUNTI (Breach of Contract - Fresh Coat) 58. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 57 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 59. Fresh Coat materially breached its contract with the plaintiffs. 60. As a result of Fresh Coat’s material breach of its contract with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT II (Negligence — Fresh Coat) 61. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 60 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 62. Fresh Coat owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform its cleaning and painting services in a professional and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs. 63. Fresh Coat breached its aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently performed its cleaning and painting services at the Property. 64. As a result of Fresh Coat’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the plaintiffs sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses. 10 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT DL (Negligent Misrepresentation — Fresh Coat) { 65. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 64 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 66. Fresh Coat negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs concerning, among other things, (a) its ability to complete the requisite cleaning and painting at the Property in a competent, timely and workmanlike manner, (b) the promises and representations made in the Fresh Coat Quote, as described heretofore, and (c) Fatati’s excellent work and its oversight of same. 67. Fresh Coat knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would rely upon its aforesaid representations. 68. The plaintiffs relied upon Fresh Coat’s aforesaid representations. 69. The plaintiffs initially discovered Fresh Coat’s aforesaid misrepresentations following the performance of its shoddy and inferior workmanship. 70. As a result of Fresh Coat’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the plaintiffs suffered damages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. Il Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number COUNT IV (Violation of G.L. c. 142A — Fresh Coat) 71. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 72. At all times material hereto, Fresh Coat was a “contractor” subject to the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. 73. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein, Fresh Coat failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. TA. As a result of Fresh Coat’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT V (Violation of G.L. c. 93A — Fresh Coat) 7. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 74 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 76. Fresh Coat is engaged in trade or commerce. 77. Fresh Coat’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the ‘ Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 12 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 78. Fresh Coat’s conduct, including but not limited to, its violations of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 79. As a result of Fresh Coat’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, as follows: a for actual damages; b. for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendant’s, Timothy Robert Holdings LLC d/b/a Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury, willful or knowing violations of the Act; and for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. COUNT.VI (Breach of Contract - Fatati) 80. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 79 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 81. Fatati materially breached its contract with the plaintiffs. 82. As a result of Fatati’s material breach of its contract with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. 13 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number COUNT VII (Negligence — Fatati) 83. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 82 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 84. Fatati owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform its carpentry work in a professional and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs. 85. Fatati breached its aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently performed its carpentry work at the Property. 86. As a result of Fatati’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the plaintiffs sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT VT (Negligent Misrepresentation — Fatati) 87. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 86 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 88. Fatati negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs concerning, among other things, its ability to complete the requisite carpentry work at the Property in a competent, timely and workmanlike manner. 89. Fatati knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would rely upon its aforesaid representations. 90. The plaintiffs relied upon Fatati’s aforesaid representations. 14 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 91. The plaintiffs initially discovered Fatati’s aforesaid misrepresentations following the performance of its shoddy and inferior workmanship. 92. As a result of Fatati’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the plaintiffs suffered damages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT IX (Violation of G.L. ¢. 142A — Fatati) 93. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 92 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 94. At all times material hereto, Fatati was a “contractor” subject to the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. 95. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein, Fatati failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. 96. As a result of Fatati’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. 15 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number COUNT X (Violation of G.L. c. 93A — Fatati) 97. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 96 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 98. Fatati is engaged in trade or commerce. 99. Fatati’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 100. Fatati’s conduct, including but not limited to, its violations of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 101. As a result of Fatati’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, as follows: a. for actual damages; b for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendant’s, Fatati Home Remodeling Corp, willful or knowing violations of the Act; and for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. COUNT XI (Breach of Contract — Johnson Copper) 102. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 101 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 103. Johnson Copper materially breached his contract with the plaintiffs. 16 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex. Docket Number 104. As a result of Johnson Copper’s material breach of his contract with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were caused to sustain substantial losses as a result of the damage to their home. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT XII (Negligence — Johnson Copper) 105. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 104 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 106. Johnson Copper owed a duty to the plaintiffs to perform his roofing work in a professional and competent matter for, and on behalf of, the plaintiffs. 107. Johnson Copper breached his aforesaid duty to the plaintiffs and negligently performed its roofing work at the Property. 108. As a result of Johnson Copper’s negligence, all as heretofore described, the plaintiffs sustained damages to their home as well as substantial pecuniary and economic losses. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT XVII (Negligent Misrepresentation — Johnson Copper) 109. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 17 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 110. Johnson Copper negligently misrepresented pertinent facts to the plaintiffs concerning, among other things, his ability to complete the requisite roofing work at the Property in a competent, timely and workmanlike manner. lll. Johnson Copper knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiffs would rely upon his aforesaid representations. 112. The plaintiffs relied upon Johnson Copper’s aforesaid representations. 113. The plaintiffs initially discovered Johnson Copper’s aforesaid misrepresentations following the performance of his shoddy and inferior workmanship. 114. As a result of Johnson Copper’s aforesaid negligent misrepresentations, the plaintiffs suffered damages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. COUNT XIV (Violation of G.L. c. 142A — Johnson Copper) 115. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs | through 114 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 116. At all times material hereto, Johnson Copper was a “contractor” subject to the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. 117. For all of the reasons stated heretofore, all of which are incorporated herein, Johnson Copper failed, refused and neglected to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. 18 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 118. As a result of Johnson Copper’s violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, for compensatory damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as the court may deem equitable and just. ~ COUNT XV (Violation of G.L. ¢c. 93A — Johnson Copper) 119. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 of the Complaint and Jury Claim as if fully set forth herein. 120. Johnson Copper is engaged in trade or commerce. 121. Johnson Copper’s wrongful conduct occurred primarily and substantially in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 122. Johnson Copper’s conduct, including but not limited to, his violations of the Home Improvement Contractor Act, constitutes knowing and willful unfair acts and/or deceptive practices declared illegal pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 123. As a result of Johnson Copper’s unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices, the plaintiffs have sustained substantial pecuniary and economic loss. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, hereby demand the entry of judgment against the defendant, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, as follows: for actual damages; for double or treble the amount of actual damages due to the defendants, Paul S. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Copper Company, willful or knowing violations of the Act; and 19 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number c. for reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. JURY DEMAND The plaintiffs, William H. Lord and Sarah B. Lord, demand a trial by jury on all counts so triable. WILLIAM H. LORD and SARAH B. LORD, By their attorney, /s/ Seth H. Hochbaum SETH H. HOCHBAUM - BBO NO. 568118 REGNANTE STERIO LLP 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 630 Wakefield, MA 01880-6210 hochbaum@regnante.com (781) 246-2525 (ext. 214) Dated: May 31, 2024 20 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM ‘Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number EXHIBIT #1 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number aga SHERWIN i i (2 iy. ting Done RIGHT! eQuote - Baker exterior Project: Customer: 4 Baker exterior William Lord Fresh Coat of Shrewsbury Address: 29 Address: 29 Shrewsbury, MA, USA, SHERWIN Baker Street, Baker Street, Shrewsbury, MA, United States ILLIAMS. Foxborough, Foxborough, (508) 715-3755 Foxborough, Foxborough, Tim Stanley - MA, United MA, United tstanley@freshcoatpainters.com States States Email: William. Email: William. 206895 nae ut h.lord@icloud. h.lord@icloud.c com om About Fresh Coat Printed On: 07/27/2023 08:10:20 PM 1 of 18 Date Filed 5/31/2024 10:31 AM ‘Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number " he Ge no SHERWIN Whuams, AT, bs eh i@ i tinting Done RIGHT! Fresh Coat Painters' History & Promise With services in more than 100 major cities across North America, Fresh Coat's experienced business owners and their professional painters understand how important your surroundings are to you. We know whether we're painting the interior or exterior of your home or the inside and outside of your office, condominium, or apartment building, you expect the very best service at a competitive price. It's our goal to provide you with an exceptionally positive experience from the time we deliver your guaranteed written quote