Castro, G. v. Altieri Contracting
2439 EDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 5, 2025Background
- Gary Castro (homeowner) contracted Altieri Contracting (and affiliates) to build an in-ground pool and fencing for $42,000, with a $27,300 deposit paid upfront.
- No work was performed, and Castro’s deposit was never returned.
- Castro sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
- The trial court granted Castro partial summary judgment for breach of contract and held a non-jury trial on remaining claims, ultimately awarding Castro $91,900.
- Altieri argued on appeal that Castro knew subcontractors (specifically Additional Defendants) would install the pool, negating any misrepresentation or deception.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court erred by finding HICPA/UTPCPL violations and negligent misrepresentation based on nondisclosure of the use of subcontractors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did nondisclosure of subcontractor violate HICPA/UTPCPL? | Appellants didn't disclose subcontracting; intent to deceive. | Castro knew of third-party involvement; no deception occurred. | Court: No evidence Castro approved subcontractor; violation found. |
| Did Altieri engage in negligent misrepresentation? | Appellants misled about who would do the work. | Castro implicitly consented to subcontractor based on prior communications. | Court: Appellants failed to inform Castro; misrepresentation established. |
| Was contract formation itself deceptive for HICPA/UTPCPL? | Appellants had no intent to perform work directly, as required. | Knowledge of possible subcontractors was implicit in negotiations. | Court: No contract reference to subcontractors; deception confirmed. |
| Was verdict contrary to law or unsupported by evidence? | Trial record supports all findings against Appellants. | Voicemail and communications show full transparency by Appellants. | Court: Evidence supports verdict; findings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoley v. Wampler, 317 A.3d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2024) (establishes appellate review standard for non-jury civil trials)
- Burkey v. CCX, Inc., 106 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (finality and appealability of judgments against last defendant)
- Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Const. Corp., 657 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 1995) (judgment entry and appeal timing after post-trial motions)
- Baumbach v. Lafayette Coll., 272 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. 2022) (definition of final orders in civil litigation)