Melvin Craft Facing Breach of Contract and Fraud Suit Filed by Marlinton Homebuyers
The case of Kenneth Hurff and Elizabeth Hurff v. Melvin Craft awaits a verdict from Judge Robert E. Richardson. The Hurff family, of Pocahontas County, are suing Craft for an alleged faulty roof installation, claiming that the representative from Melvin Craft Construction of Lewisburg failed to administer a crucial step into the construction of the roof itself, specifically the contractor neglected to include battens in between the old and new layers of the Hurff’s roof. Typically, the roofer will include battens, or furring strips, between a shingle-layer of roofing and a new layer of roofing, which in the Hurff’s case, tin roofing. Craft also withheld the pertinent information that he actively decided against including the strip, which was relevant to his contractual obligations, from his clients. The suit alleges breach of contract, contractor fraud, and failure to notify the plaintiffs of his alterations to pre-discussed and agreed upon work orders according to case documents from the Pocahontas Circuit Court.
Despite Craft’s assurances that his roofing expertise and materials would have a long, sustainable life, the plaintiffs began to have problems shortly after the company finished its labor on their home. Only 11 years after Craft installed the new roof, the plaintiffs in the breach of contract case in West Virginia began experiencing extreme water exposure and leaks shortly after the initial contract work done by Melvin Craft. The substandard work in question is alleged to have occurred in 2003, with the plaintiffs requiring multiple other contractors opining that prior substandard work was the cause of ongoing roof leaks in the plaintiff’s household. After contacting a number of roofing professionals to receive their individual opinions on the roof, the plaintiffs reluctantly concluded that the consensus among these experts was that their last roofer, defendant Melvin Craft, skipped the vital step of including furring strips between the layers.
The Hurffs are holding Craft entirely responsible for their ongoing leaky roof situation. While the plaintiffs readily admit their lack of roofing knowledge, the point of seeking out a contractor in the first place was to depend upon the accuracy and transparency in Craft’s explanation of methods and materials, as well as professional expertise on the part of Melvin Craft Construction of Lewisburg. The plaintiff’s claim holds that Craft and the company he represents took advantage of the couple, their limited roofing knowledge, while also breaking contractual obligations by failing to perform necessary tasks relevant to the lifetime of the roof itself.
Attorney Christopher Heavens has taken up the case for the Hurffs, who are seeking to redress in the form of damages as they relate to the intentional material misrepresentations made by the housing contractor, as well as the failure of the contractor to comply with industry standards in this West Virginia contractor fraud case, as well as legal costs.