The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court's ruling in a case involving Castle Construction Corporation and a homeowner, Sharon Leibengood-Chavez. The court ruled that Castle was not liable under the Home Improvement Contracts Act (HICA) or the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA). This decision affects contractors and homeowners in Indiana, clarifying the legal definitions of supplier and contractor in construction disputes.
The case, Castle Construction Corp. v. Sharon Leibengood-Chavez, was filed under docket number 25A-PL-01373. It stemmed from a renovation project at Leibengood-Chavez's home in Cedar Lake, Indiana, where she hired ARK Supplies, Inc. for the work. However, ARK was not licensed to perform home improvements in the area, leading to legal complications when the renovations were poorly executed.
Castle Construction, led by Michael Vaidik, was licensed to perform such work and obtained a building permit for the project. Yet, ARK did the actual renovations without informing the homeowner of its unlicensed status. After facing significant damages due to poor workmanship, Leibengood-Chavez filed a complaint against both ARK and Castle in January 2021, claiming violations of HICA and DCSA.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of Leibengood-Chavez, granting her summary judgment against ARK and awarding her $150,000 in damages, including attorney fees. Castle, however, contested the ruling, arguing that it was not a supplier under HICA and that it had no direct contractual relationship with the homeowner.
In May 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment to Leibengood-Chavez against Castle as well, concluding that Castle had committed a deceptive act by obtaining a permit while knowing it would not perform the work. The court awarded Leibengood-Chavez a total of $167,410.20, including treble damages for defects in workmanship.
On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that Castle was not a real property improvement supplier under HICA. Judge Foley, writing for the court, stated, "Castle was a third party that provided services to a general contractor. ARK was the entity hired by Homeowner to perform the renovation work such that ARK bore the obligation under Indiana Code section 24-5-11-10(a)(9) to disclose Castle’s involvement."
The court explained that Castle's actions—merely pulling a permit for ARK—did not constitute engaging in a real property improvement contract. The court emphasized that a contractor must have a direct contractual relationship with the homeowner to be considered a supplier under HICA. Castle's involvement was limited to administrative tasks, which did not meet the statutory definition.
Furthermore, the court ruled that Castle was not a supplier under the DCSA either. The DCSA defines a supplier as someone who regularly engages in consumer transactions. Since Castle's actions were part of a business-to-business arrangement with ARK, the court concluded that Castle did not engage in a consumer transaction with Leibengood-Chavez.
The court's ruling has significant implications for contractors and homeowners in Indiana. It clarifies the definitions of supplier and contractor under HICA and DCSA, potentially affecting future cases involving construction contracts and consumer protection laws. The ruling indicates that not all parties involved in a construction project may be held liable under these statutes, particularly if they do not have a direct contractual relationship with the consumer.
Looking ahead, the case could influence how contractors approach their relationships with subcontractors and homeowners. It emphasizes the importance of clear communication and legal compliance in home improvement projects. The court's decision also serves as a reminder that homeowners should verify the licensing status of contractors before entering into agreements.
As for the possibility of an appeal, it appears unlikely that this decision will be contested further, as the Indiana Court of Appeals has provided a clear interpretation of the relevant statutes. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.