03-3235 Rayner v. Reeves Custom Builders, Inc.

Listen to this article

“The purpose of these laws is to protect homeowners from unfair dealings and practices in areas such as the home improvement arena. The law means, by its clear terms, to expose to liability any person or entity responsible for plotting an unfair method of interaction. In this case, it was the person and not the entity. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the individual’s motion to dismiss the case on the basis that only the alleged wrongdoer’s alter ego, a corporation, may be sued. We do, however, allow dismissal as to his wife, because there is no evidence of her involvement other than being an officer of the corporation. …

“Unlike personnel decisions, which involve purely internal business practices, the home improvement industry involves individuals interacting with people on the outside. Many of these contacts and negotiations occur out in the field and in the customer’s home. Where the individual’s employer has not instructed him or her to engage in improper conduct, the employer has little opportunity to exercise direct oversight of its agents to prevent such conduct.

“On the other hand, the individual clearly does possess the power to ensure fair dealing and practices. Allowing a corporate agent to use the corporate form to shield malfeasance of his or her own design inadequately deters such practices. In Jackson v. DeWitt, [citation] we stated, ‘public policy dictates that consumer protection statutes and administrative rules must be read in pari materia to achieve the goal of providing protection and remedies to consumers.’ Accordingly, we construe ‘and their officers, representatives, agents and employees,’ see Wis. Admin Code § ATCP 110.01(5), to have its plain meaning: all of the named individuals and entities are potential sources of the unfair methods of dealing that Wis. Stat.§ 100.20 meant to stamp out. To the extent individuals have the power to prevent unfair dealings with consumers, individuals will incur liability for noncompliance.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Walworth County, Brown, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Randall G. Leece, Elkhorn; John Michael Murphy, Elkhorn

For Respondent: David C. Williams, Lake Geneva