« Parents fume over 8th graders' graphic sex-ed lesson | Main | Sending cellphone photos of your stolen kidney isn't a good idea »
Contractor sues woman for slamming his work
Monica Hammock says her experience with a contractor was a year-long, $30,000 nightmare. She used Angie's List website to blast him as "awful" -- a contractor who "takes your money and runs." He has responded with a $6 million lawsuit against the woman. (Washington Post)
March 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I believe it's only libel if it is not true.
Posted by: | Mar 13, 2007 5:40:48 AM
If the shoe fits...
Posted by: KDP | Mar 13, 2007 6:27:17 AM
he did bad work. bad word of mouth is the worst.
suing for 6 million is dumb. if she has photos of his bad work she won't have a problem
Posted by: | Mar 13, 2007 6:31:32 AM
Hmmmmmmmm... I wouldn't use a national news story alone as a basis for a large monetary decision. However, it seems to me that the contractor has a history.
Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Posted by: | Mar 13, 2007 7:36:17 AM
Why is this even a published story? Jeez--the things that pass as news these days!
Posted by: Troschne | Mar 13, 2007 8:00:03 AM
I used Angie's List to find a roofer and was very satisfied with the contractor I finally hired through them.
This contractor has a history of shoddy work and is trying to intimidate his ex-clients by threatening them with lawsuits. The judge should toss the suit and force him to pay court costs.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Mar 13, 2007 8:37:54 AM
Troschne, I think this is a great story. A contractor is angry about a client's bad mouthing his work and sues her for $6 million. The story then discusses the kinds of sites customers can use to determine how others in their community view certain contractors. It's a perfect feature for the Style section, or wherever this appeared in the Post.
Posted by: oxhead | Mar 13, 2007 8:44:04 AM
I see your point, but I just can't imagine there wasn't something else that could have taken the space this story did. The woman had every right to report the contractor, and his lawsuit if frivilous, but if the woman reported him to Angie's List, and reported him to the BBB, she did her part--anyone who is seeking a contractor should do his/her due diligence from there. The fact that it warrented a story in the Washington Post seems a bit extreme to me--if it had been in some small town, it might be news. In the Nation's capitol--not so much. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Troschne | Mar 13, 2007 8:59:03 AM
Well, I live here AND I'm looking for a contractor to put in a basement bathroom. Maybe that's why I liked the story so much.
Posted by: oxhead | Mar 13, 2007 9:09:36 AM
Troschne: This is indeed a fascinating story. You might find it interesting if you posted an opinion about someone here and they turned around and sued you for $6 million.
Not news? Perhaps you want the latest update on Britney...
Posted by: BobH | Mar 13, 2007 9:16:19 AM
FYI, the story was run as part of a LOCAL INTEREST column that appears daily in the Style section of the Post.
Get off your freakin' high horse, Troschne...I live in the DC area and think this is a perfectly appropriate story, especially in a column and especially in the Style section.
But I would have thought the story was informative even if it had run in the Metro section as an article.
Posted by: VG | Mar 13, 2007 9:22:57 AM
Definitely an informative story, I have to disagree with Troschne on this one. It was meant as a local piece of interest to those of us in this area. If you were planning some work on your residence and you lived here, you might feel differently about reading this in the local major paper.
This contractor's story stinks like pig manure. There are way too many shoddy contractors out there for poor contracting to go unpunished. It'll only end when people really speak up like this woman did. Poor contracting can ruin the integrity of your residence in worst case scenario, and that could make it unsafe for you to live there, thus endagering you and your family-not to mention the outragous prices many quote.
Posted by: V | Mar 13, 2007 9:47:53 AM
"Sieber said his crews didn't do the damage Hammock ascribed to him: the mistakenly cut support beam, the incorrectly wired heat pump."
So, he doesn't claim the damage didn't happen, he claims it wasn't his crews. Was it the contractor gremlins? The Boogeyman?
It seems as though Mr. Sieber has been in this situation quite a few times in the past, yet never wants to admit fault.
"In 1992, after complaints from homeowners, he signed a settlement with the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Affairs, agreeing to cease home improvement work for three years.
Sieber told me that he'd rather not comment on his Montgomery problems. 'That goes back to a company long, long ago that has nothing to do with [the current case],' he said."
Nope, nothing at all to do with it. It's not the same sort of thing in the slightest.
Posted by: WellThen | Mar 13, 2007 9:59:25 AM
The sad news is that even though this case is frivolous, it is still going to end up costing the lady a lot of money for legal counsel and court costs. If there is even a small chance she might lose, her lawyer will recommend settling. Then she's out court costs, lawyer fees and settlement fees. She can counter-sue, but that leads to even more fees.
During the whole process she'll have to provide a ton of seemingly irrelevant information which will cause her extreme stress and will drive her crazy.
Been there, just finished that, am a whole lot poorer for it.
Posted by: ReardenSteele | Mar 13, 2007 10:18:23 AM
The most interesting part is that her post was anonymous and he recognized it anyway, from the damages done. Dude knows everything happened the way she said, or he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint her. He's lying through his teeth, continuing the same crap that got him in trouble in the 90s. And she might suffer more for blowing the whistle, as RSteele outlines.
Argh!
Posted by: V | Mar 13, 2007 10:39:18 AM
I bet the case gets thrown out. You simply can't sue for libel over opinion. Secondly, Monica Hammock should pursue filing a SLAPP grievance against SCS. (Google or Wiki "SLAPP" if you aren't familiar with the acronym.)
Posted by: oxhead | Mar 13, 2007 10:44:54 AM
Hopefully she does file a SLAPP grievance. And it's more than opinion, she's got incidences of shoddy work-I'm pretty sure this suit was stupid on SCS' part, because unless she's completely talking out of her butt, and it doesn't sound like she is, then she'll win.
I hope.
Posted by: V | Mar 13, 2007 10:47:53 AM
you can't rip the same person off twice. thats double dipping.
Posted by: boynamedsue | Mar 13, 2007 10:50:12 AM
? Who is ripping off whom twice boynamedsue?
Posted by: V | Mar 13, 2007 11:20:22 AM
BobH & VG--excuse me for having an opinion...
Posted by: troschne | Mar 13, 2007 12:18:57 PM
In many states due to tort reform if a lawsuit is thrown out as having no merit, or being frivolous, the filing party has to pick up the expenses of the person they sued thereby making it not a free shot a people. I do not think that you can sue someone with any hope of winning if the evaluation of your work is true. There have been instances, however, where people contract someone, the work is done satisfactorily but the party refuses to pay and will use complaints of shoddy workmanship as a reason for not paying their bill. Think about that. A person gets work done for free and saves the money promised for the job. If this guy has a good work record (which he must if he hopes to sue) and perhaps the woman has a history of making these kinds of complaints. I saw this backfire on someone who used to demand comp'd meals because they found the food to be unsatisfactory. When they tried to sue a garage who would not release their car without payment for work done, the garage's lawyer was able to locate a dozen or so of these "not paying cuz the work is no good" complaints, defended against the suit, sued back for the legal fees and ended up with a judgement against the house and car. So its not necessarily a free shot on people, unless you are clearly right.
Posted by: TomW | Mar 13, 2007 12:44:35 PM
I actually use Angie's List from time to time and have posted reviews on it. I found a tree removal firm through it and they were great. By mentioning Angie's List, I also got a 10 percent discount.
But I haven't had a horrible experience like these people did. So I found the article pretty helpful because it sure makes me think twice about how much I'd say in a bad review.
Posted by: Swangirl | Mar 13, 2007 1:48:22 PM
