First Response Services, Inc. v. Vincent A. Cullers (Vincent A. Cullers Counterclaim v. First Response Services, Inc. Counterclaim Defendant), 7 N.E.3d 1016

First Response provided water remediation for Cullers and charged $7,722.43; Cullers did not pay.
Trial court held the contract was governed by HICA and violated 24-5-11-10(a) by omitting a reasonably detailed description and contract price.
Two signed documents—the Third Party Work Authorization and the Customer Communication/Work Authorization—constituted the contract but omitted required details.
No initial estimate was provided; Cullers claimed he expected an estimate before work began.
Court found Cullers owed $3,780.38 for services; it denied attorney fees because of the HICA violation.
First Response appeals arguing the contract satisfied HICA or that subsection (c) allowed modified terms; Cullers argues strict HICA compliance bars fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied attorney fees under HICA.	First Response argues the contract complied or subsection (c) applies.	Cullers contends HICA requirements were not met, so no fees.	Yes; contract failed to meet HICA, so fees were denied.

Benge v. Miller, 855 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory protections of consumers under HICA; strict standard)
Homer v. Burman, 743 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (strict compliance standard under HICA)
Smith v. Dermatology Assocs. of Ft. Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (burden on appellant in non-jury trial; standard of review)
Baird v. ASA Collections, 910 N.E.2d 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (two-tiered standard when findings of fact are requested)
Laflamme v. Goodwin, 911 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for trial-court findings)