Haley, Mary et al v. Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. et al
Filing
87
ORDER granting 43 Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Home Improvement Practices Act claimed alleged in counts VII through IX of the amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/6/14. (rep)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY,
LESLIE BANKS and JAMES HAL BANKS,
ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ,
TERRANCE McIVER and JEAN ANN McIVER,
SUSAN SENYK and CHRISTIAN SENYK,
MATTHEW DELLER and RENEE DELLER,
GARY SAMUELS and MARIE LOHR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
OPINION AND ORDER
14-cv-99-bbc
Plaintiffs,
v.
KOLBE & KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC.,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is a proposed class action in which plaintiffs Mary and Michael Haley, Leslie and
James Hal Banks, Annie and Brian Buinewicz, Terrance and Jean Ann McIver, Susan and
Christian Senyk, Matthew and Renee Deller, Gary Samuels and Marie Lohr, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork
Co. sold them defective windows. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion to
dismiss counts VII through IX of plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in which plaintiffs contend
that defendant violated various provisions of the Home Improvement Practices Act, Wis.
Admin. Code § ATCP 110.02 and 110.04. I conclude that these regulations do not apply
to defendant or other manufacturers that do not install their products in residential or
1
noncommercial property. Dkt. #43.
Because I am dismissing these claims, it is not necessary to reach defendant’s motion
to dismiss counts VII through IX with respect to plaintiff Marie Lohr or its motion to
dismiss second count VIII of the complaint (plaintiffs alleged two count VIII’s in their
complaint), as it relates to plaintiffs Terrance McIver and Jean Ann McIver on the ground
that their claim is barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Wis. Stat. § 893.93(1)(b).
Plaintiffs alleged the following facts in their complaint.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. manufactures non-vinyl window products,
including all-wood and wood and aluminum product lines. It manufactured the defective
windows at issue in this case.
Plaintiff Marie Lohr is a resident of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, who had approximately
30 Kolbe aluminum-cladded windows installed when her home was built in 2001. Within
months of installation, the windows developed condensation and the wood on all of the
windows began to rot and deteriorate. In late 2010, defendant inspected and replaced 26
of the windows with new, aluminum-cladded Kolbe windows. In or around the summer of
2013, the 26 replacement windows began to discolor, rot and develop mold. In or around
the winter of 2013, the windows also developed significant condensation.
2
OPINION
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint common law and statutory claims that defendant
breached express and implied warranties, negligently misrepresented the condition of the
windows they sold, were negligent in the manufacture and design of the windows, made
fraudulent representations and have been unjustly enriched. In addition, they alleged the
four counts under Wisconsin’s Home Improvement Practices Act, Wis. Admin. Code §§
ATCP 110.01-.09, that are at issue on defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Home Improvement Practices Act applies to sellers of home improvements, as
defined in § ATCP 110.01.
Under the Home Improvement Practices Act, a “seller” is
defined as “a person engaged in the business of making or selling home improvements.” The
term “includes corporations, partnerships, associations, and any other form of business
organization or entity and their officers, representatives, agents, and employees.” § ATCP
101.01(5). “Home improvement” is defined in § ATCP 101.01(2) as:
the remodeling, altering, repairing, painting, or modernizing of
residential or non-commercial property, or the making of additions
thereto, and includes, but is not limited to, the construction,
installation, replacement, improvement, or repair of driveways,
sidewalks, swimming pools, terraces, patios, landscaping, fences,
porches, garages, basements and basement waterproofing, fire
protection devices, heating and air conditioning equipment, water
softeners, heaters and purifiers, wall-to-wall carpeting or attached or
inlaid floor coverings, and other changes, repairs, or improvements
made in or on, attached to, or forming a part of, the residential or
non-commercial property. The term extends to the conversion of
existing commercial structures into residential or non-commercial
property. “Home improvement” does not include the construction of
a new residence or the major renovation of an existing structure.
According to the legislative history of Chapter ATCP 110, Wisconsin has had
3
legislation since at least 1953 directed at persons and companies engaging in misleading or
deceptive sales practices. In the earliest examples, the regulation addressed persons using
misleading practices when selling roofing and siding at retail, such as telling a prospective
customer that his house would serve as a “model home” for which he will be paid a
commission or that he was being offered a special price. Dkt. #44, Exh. B, Dept. of
Agriculture, In the Matter of the Codification of Rules, Dkt. No. 407, General Order 153,
Sept. 3, 1953. See also id., Exh. A at 3, “Findings of Department of Agriculture”: “The evils
that have developed [in the sale of roofing and siding] are due to unscrupulous salesmen
selling at retail and who make statements and representations which have the capacity to and
do tend to mislead and deceive the prospective customer.” Chapter ATCP 110 is the current
version of the regulations, expanded to cover not just sellers of roofing and siding, but any
person in the business of making or selling home improvements who engages in misleading
or deceptive sales practices.
The question at issue is a purely legal one: does the Act apply to persons like
defendant who sell windows but are not alleged to have installed them?
Defendant
contends that it does not because the Home Improvement Practices Act was written to
regulate the entities constructing,
installing, repairing, remodeling and modernizing
residential properties, not at the entities that provide the products used in those services.
Defendant notes that when the Act defines defining “home improvements,” it uses verbs
rather than nouns, talking in terms of work to be performed, such as altering, repairing,
making additions to residential or non-commercial property and installing and replacing
4
specific items, along with “other changes, repairs or improvements made in or on, attached
to, or forming a part of, the residential or non-commercial property.” It says nothing about
the manufacturers or sellers of the products that a person making or selling home
improvements may install or replace on the property as part of the remodeling process.
Defendant points out that other provisions of the Act support its position that the
Act does not apply to manufacturers: (1) under § ATCP 110.04(1), sellers are required to
provide all warranty documents to the buyer at the time the buyer enters into the home
improvement contract, with the exception of manufacturers’ product warranties, which may
be provided at the time of installation; (2) under § ATCP 110.05(2)(b), the home
improvement contract must describe the work to be done and the principal products and
materials to be used, which defendant says indicates that the rule targets the contractor, who
must identify the work to be done and the products and materials to be used or installed,
whereas a manufacturer such as defendant is not doing any work or installing anything; (3)
under § ATCP 110.07(2)(c), a buyer whose payments have been used to purchase materials
for the home improvement may require the seller to deliver any undelivered materials to the
home improvement site, which is a further indication that the manufacturers of products are
treated differently from contractors using the products. Finally, it notes that no Wisconsin
court has held that a manufacturer is a “seller” under the Act.
Plaintiffs view the issue differently, arguing that the definition of “seller” extends to
entities that merely sell home improvements and that a window is clearly a “home
improvement.” They cite a number of cases, none of which provide support for their
position. Rohrer v. Willis, 2003 WI App 42, 260 Wis. 2d 602, 658 N.W.2d 88, an
5
unpublished decision, concerned a suit by homeowners against the members of the
corporation with which they had contracted for the installation of windows and which had
failed to pay the manufacturer for the windows it installed. The court of appeals noted that
the manufacturer had placed a lien on the homeowners’ residence for the amount owed for
the windows but the lien was essentially irrelevant to the question before it so the court had
no reason to identify the legal basis for it. Plaintiffs concede that Wis. Stat. § 779.036(1)
would have provided a legal basis for the lien and do not claim that it would have been
proper under Chapter ATCP 110. In Complete Plumbing, Inc. v. Follett, 2012 WI App 73,
342 Wis. 2d 251, 816 N.W.2d 352, another unpublished opinion, and Stuart v. Weisflog’s
Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22, 308 Wis. 2d 103, 746 N.W.2d 762, the courts never
had occasion to address the question whether the Act would apply to a manufacturer of a
product not involved in the product’s installation because both suits were brought against
contracting entities. In Jackson v. DeWitt, 224 Wis. 2d 877, 592 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App.
1999), the question was the construction of a contractor’s assignment of his interest in a
home improvement contract; the only reference to the Act was the court of appeals’ holding
that under § ATCP 110.06, the assignee of a home improvement contract takes the contract
subject to the claims and defenses of the consumer without regard to negotiability.
In further support of their position that the Act applies to defendant, plaintiffs cite
another unpublished Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, American Total Security, Inc. v.
Geneva Schultz Living Trust, 2007 WI App 1, 298 Wis. 2d 248, 726 N.W.2d 357, for the
proposition that “windows are a feature encompassed within the definition of ‘home
improvement.’” Plts.’ Br., dkt. #58, at 4 n.1. Although the court of appeals found that
6
American Total Security’s contract with defendant for the purchase and installation of
windows violated § ATCP 110.05(2) (“Home improvement contract requirements”), id. at
¶¶ 3, 8, it never said that “windows are encompassed within the definition of ‘home
improvement.’” In fact, it never explained the grounds for its finding that American Total
Security was a covered “seller”; instead, it merely adopted the finding it had made when the
case was before it at an earlier stage. (No copy of that earlier decision is available.)
Presumably, at that time, it explained why it found that American Total Security was
covered under § ATCP 110.01(5). That would be a proper conclusion in a situation in
which the defendant had contracted with American Total Security for both the windows and
their installation. Whether the state court would have reached the same result if the case
had not involved installation of the windows is impossible to determine.
Plaintiffs argue that an Act such as Chapter ATCP 110 should be construed broadly
to effectuate its purposes of protecting homeowners from unscrupulous manufacturers as
well as sellers using deceptive practices to defraud persons seeking home improvements.
That argument is unobjectionable so far as it applies to the entities covered by the Act.
However, plaintiffs have failed to show either that the Act applies to manufacturers such as
defendant, who do not install their products, or that homeowners would lack remedies
against manufacturers if the Act does not apply.
In short, in the absence of any allegations by plaintiffs that defendant ever installed
the supposedly defective windows or otherwise acted as a contractor for any home
improvement involving the windows at issue, I am not persuaded by plaintiffs’ arguments
that a “person engaged in the business of making or selling home improvements” includes
7
a product manufacturer that does not undertake the installation of the product.
Accordingly, I conclude that Wisconsin’s Home Improvement Practices Act is not applicable
to defendant.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider whether plaintiffs Marie Lohr,
Terrance McIver or Jean Ann McIver have any viable claims under Chapter ATCP 110, as
alleged in claims VII- IX.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co.’s motion to dismiss,
dkt. #43, is GRANTED with respect to the Home Improvement Practices Act claims alleged
in counts VII through IX of the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Mary and Michael
Haley, Leslie and James Hal Banks, Annie and Brian Buinewicz, Terrance and Jean Ann
McIver, Susan and Christian Senyk, Matthew and Renee Deller, Gary Samuels and Marie
Lohr.
Entered this 6th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?