The original incident behind this class action was the collapse of a building, which damaged a neighboring building, whose owner in turn hired Belfor USA Group, Inc. to do restoration work. The complaint for this class action alleges that Belfor, which does business as Belfor Property Restoration, “overcharges [clients]—up to three to four times more than it pays—for equipment rentals it uses to restore their property.”
The Nationwide Class for this action is all persons and entities who were invoiced for equipment rentals by Belfor on or after May 3, 2016. A Missouri Subclass has been defined for those who were invoiced for such rentals in Missouri.
Hatcher Investments, LLC, the plaintiff in this case, owns a building in Liberty, Missouri. A tenant of its building was the Rock and Run microbrewery and restaurant. On May 3, 2016, the nearby Ethan Allen Building collapsed, partially destroying Hatcher’s building and stopping operations at the Rock and Run.
The complaint says that Belfor “assumed the role of general contractor for construction efforts to secure the collapsed site and neighboring buildings.” Hatcher then also entered into a contract with Belfor to repair its building.
Belfor agreed to perform some of the work according to the terms set forth in the insurance policy for the Hatcher building. Uninsured costs were to be billed to Hatcher.
The complaint says, “Demolishing the Ethan Allen Building and stabilizing the neighboring buildings, including [Hatcher’s] Building, required the use of interior shoring equipment, which [Belfor] rented from an equipment contractor.”
According to the complaint, Belfor rented the equipment for $3,125 per month, but then billed Hatcher for $9,500 per month for the equipment. But that wasn’t all: Belfor also charged Hatcher for “profit and overhead” which included 20% of the shoring equipment rental, driving the charge to Hatcher up to $11,400 per month.
The complaint alleges, “$11,400 per month to rent shoring equipment is not standard industry pricing.” Labor with the equipment was billing separately.
“On multiple occasions,” the complaint says, Hatcher “requested documentation relating to the shoring equipment rental, but [Belfor] refused to provide any invoices.” Hatcher did not learn of the actual amount of the rental until a deposition was taken in a related lawsuit about insurance proceeds and the damage to the building.
The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent nondisclosure.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Contract
Most Recent Case Event
Belfor Property Restoration Padded Charges for Rental Equipment Complaint
May 3, 2021
The original incident behind this class action was the collapse of a building, which damaged a neighboring building, whose owner in turn hired Belfor USA Group, Inc. to do restoration work. The complaint for this class action alleges that Belfor, which does business as Belfor Property Restoration, “overcharges [clients]—up to three to four times more than it pays—for equipment rentals it uses to restore their property.”
Belfor Property Restoration Padded Charges for Rental Equipment ComplaintCase Event History
Belfor Property Restoration Padded Charges for Rental Equipment Complaint
May 3, 2021
The original incident behind this class action was the collapse of a building, which damaged a neighboring building, whose owner in turn hired Belfor USA Group, Inc. to do restoration work. The complaint for this class action alleges that Belfor, which does business as Belfor Property Restoration, “overcharges [clients]—up to three to four times more than it pays—for equipment rentals it uses to restore their property.”
Belfor Property Restoration Padded Charges for Rental Equipment Complaint