Whaley v. Definitive Roofing and Specialty Coatings, LLC
5:24-cv-00339
| E.D. Ky. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Mark Whaley, operating a business from property legally owned by his mother, Lillie Whaley, contracted for roof repairs after storm damage but the roof allegedly continued to leak after the work.
- Whaley sued Environmental Roofing Components, LLC (ERC), IB Roof Systems, Inc. (IB), and contractor Definitive Roofing for breach of contract, negligence, and Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) violations.
- ERC and IB both moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Definitive Roofing moved to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties (Lillie Whaley and the insurer) and the real party in interest.
- The court held that Whaley failed to plead valid contract and KCPA claims against ERC and IB due to lack of privity, but sufficiently pled a products liability negligence claim.
- The court found that necessary and real party in interest objections were cured by an assignment of rights from Lillie Whaley to Mark Whaley.
- Leave to further amend the complaint was denied due to privity failures and Whaley already being given an opportunity to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract claims vs. manufacturers | Oral/implied contracts existed with ERC/IB | No enforceable contract or privity; only material suppliers | Claims dismissed; no plausible privity as a matter of law |
| Negligence (product liability) | ERC/IB negligent in furnishing defective materials | Economic loss rule bars recovery; no duty | Sufficient claim; negligence plausible per product liability |
| KCPA claim | Defendants liable for deceptive trade practices | Privity required for KCPA; none exists | Claims dismissed; KCPA requires privity |
| Necessary/real party in interest (Rule 19/17) | Whaley was real party or had ratification from owner | Lillie Whaley (owner) and insurer needed as parties | Assignment/ratification from Lillie Whaley cures defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirement for more than conclusory allegations)
- Presnell Const. Managers, Inc. v. EH Const., LLC, 134 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2004) (privity and third-party beneficiary contract principles)
- Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 348 S.W.3d 729 (Ky. 2011) (application of economic loss rule)
- Skilcraft Sheetmetal, Inc. v. Kentucky Mach., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992) (privity requirement under Kentucky Consumer Protection Act)