IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * CASE NO.: 2:06-cv-618-MEF 

* 

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., et al., * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Comes Now, Plaintiff, and substitutes this Amended Complaint for the original 

Complaint and states the following: 

PARTIES

 

1. Plaintiff Harold Kelly Murphy is over the age of nineteen (19) and is a 

resident of Montgomery County, Alabama. 

2. Defendant Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (“Southern Energy”) upon 

information and belief is an Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Delaware, who does business by agent in Montgomery County, Alabama. 

BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 5401, et. seq., went into effect on June 15, 1976, and is commonly referred to 

as the “HUD Code.” In addition, there exists the Manufactured Home Construction and 

Safety Standards, 24 C.F.R. § 3280, et. seq., (the “Standards”) and the Manufactured 

Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, 24 C.F.R. § 3282, et. seq., (the 

“Regulations.”) 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 1 of 20
2

4. The Standards mandate that “[a]ll construction methods shall be in 

conformance with accepted engineering practices to insure durable, livable and safe 

housing and shall demonstrate acceptable workmanship reflecting journeyman quality of 

work of the various trades.” 24 C.F.R 3280.303(b). 

5. Defendant has known since at least the early 1990s that homes that it has 

manufactured and sold in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Louisiana are defectively designed for that region. 

6. The manufactured home designed and manufactured by Defendant and 

purchased by Plaintiff, has defectively designed and constructed moisture control 

performance, exterior walls, wall cavities, and exterior coverings and/or ventilation 

systems, in violation of the HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety 

Standards. Specifically, the defective manufactured home uses a design that incorporates 

a vapor barrier on the “living side” of the wall structures combined with wall cavities and 

external coverings or sheathing and/or ventilation systems that causes moisture to 

accumulate and remain in the wall cavities of the manufactured home which is subject to 

the hot and humid climactic conditions in the Gulf Coast Region. Defendant’s 

construction of manufactured homes that causes moisture to condense, accumulate and 

remain in the walls and wall cavities does not comply with accepted engineering 

practices to insure durable, livable, and safe housing as set forth in HUD Standards Title 

24 of the Code of Federal Regulations §§ 3208.303. The manner in which Defendant 

designs and constructs their products with wall cavities ventilated to the outside ambient 

air and/or ventilation systems that create negative pressure conditions in the wall 

structures for homes in the Gulf Coast Region has led to or will lead to excessive 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 2 of 20
3

accumulation of vapor condensation and a contiguous moisture problem through the 

exterior wall structures of the manufactured homes utilizing this design. The moisture 

environment within the walls and wall cavities is a performance failure created by the 

defective design and construction and has led or will lead to premature deterioration of 

wall materials, warping or wakening of wall materials, development of “soft walls”, and 

to an extreme amount of mold and fungal growth throughout the wall structure thereby 

creating elevated exposure to such mold and fungal growth to occupants. Because this 

predictable phenomenon and resulting damage occurs in the Gulf Coast states, people 

working in the manufactured housing industry commonly refer to this condition as "Gulf 

Coast Syndrome." 

7. Contrary to the mandate to build homes using “acceptable engineering 

practices to insure durable, livable and safe housing,” the placement of a vapor barrier on 

the living side of the homes in the regions described herein is contrary to acceptable and 

fundamental engineering practices. 

8. The manufactured homes designed and manufactured by Defendant, 

including the manufactured home purchased by Plaintiff has an improper design and 

construction of the walls in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s (“HUD’s”) Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. The 

defect existed at the time of sale and Plaintiff was provided with a written manufacturer 

warranty that expressly warranted that the home was free from defect. 

9. Under applicable regulations, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to 

choose from one of several options for the construction of a home, taking into 

consideration, among other things, the geographic location in which the home will be 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 3 of 20
4

placed. To that end, the HUD Code has provided two options for home construction 

under 24 C.F.R. § 3280.504(b) which have never required the placement of a vapor 

retarder on the living side of the home. In addition, the HUD Code provides for any 

innovations and/or alternatives in construction for “new designs or techniques not in 

compliance with the Standards ... in cases ... [w]here such construction would provide 

performance that is equivalent or superior to that required by the Standards; and ... where 

compliance with the Standards would be unreasonable because of the circumstances of 

the particular case.”

10. Despite the fact that the HUD Code, the Standards, and the Regulations 

have never required the use of a vapor barrier on the living side of the walls in these 

regions, on or about March 30, 2000, the Director, Manufactured Housing and Standards 

Division, Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Room 9156, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter, “HUD” or “the Department”) published a 

proposed waiver to 24 C.F.R. 3280.504 of the Manufactured Home Construction and 

Safety Standards (hereinafter, “the Standards”) on March 30, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 17110). 

This proposed waiver applied to the first of the options in 24 USC 3280.504(b) (the only 

option requiring the vapor barrier /retarder be on the living side of the walls) and allowed 

the vapor barrier / retarder to be moved from the living side walls of the home to 

the outside of the home. Thus, four express options were available to the manufacturer 

before the “proposed waiver” was implemented in March 2000. The waiver now creates 

yet another option from which the manufacturer may choose to meet “their 

responsibilities to use construction methods that result in ‘durable, livable, and safe 

housing’ as required by 24 CFR 3280.303(b) of the Standards.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 4 of 20
5

11. The proposed waiver was issued in response to information received from 

manufacturers and certain State Administrative Agencies (“SAAs”) in southeastern States 

concerning the continuing increases in the number and severity of consumer complaints 

caused primarily by moisture build-up and condensation in homes located in the south. 

At that time, § 3280.504 of the Standards did not distinguish among climates for 

requirements for condensation control and installation of vapor barriers. Thus, for 

example, the Standards did not separately address homes placed in humid and fringe 

environments or climates, which are predominantly located in the southeastern part of the 

United States. In these climates, it was determined that it may be beneficial to prevent 

the outside, moisture-laden air from entering through the warm (exterior) side of the 

home’s exterior wall and condensing and collecting on the cold (living space or interior) 

side of the wall assembly. One means of preventing moisture from entering the exterior 

wall cavity from the outside would be to install a vapor retarder on the warm or exterior 

side of the wall instead of on the interior or living space side of the exterior wall. 

12. The interior surface of the exterior wall should also be constructed of a 

permeable material. This would permit any moisture-laden air that may have entered the 

wall cavity through a discontinuity in the exterior vapor retarder to be dissipated through 

the interior permeable material. In such cases, use of vapor retarder paints, vinyl-covered 

gypsum wallboard, or other impermeable materials or finishes on the interior side of 

exterior walls could be detrimental, because they would trap moisture within the wall. 

13. HUD in fact issued a waiver that applied to the first of the alternatives 

available under § 3280.504(b), the then current condensation control and vapor barrier 

installation requirements for exterior walls in humid and fringe climates. Specifically, 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 5 of 20
6

this waiver allowed manufacturers of homes for humid and fringe climates to install the 

vapor retarder on the exterior side, rather than the interior or living space side, of the 

exterior wall, provided: (1) The exterior side of the exterior wall is constructed with a 

vapor retarder or exterior covering and sheathing that has a permeance not greater than 

1.0 perm; and (2) the interior finish and interior wall panels are designed with a 5 perm or 

higher rating. The waiver also required manufacturers to add a statement and a map to 

the data plate indicating that the home is only suitable for installation in humid and fringe 

climates (the map designated the acceptable locations for which the waiver is applicable). 

14. The waiver that was urged by many manufacturers in the industry and 

approved by HUD stated: 

§ 3280.504 Condensation control and installation of 

vapor retarders: 

*** 

(4) Homes manufactured to be sited in "humid climates" or 

"fringe climates" as shown on the Humid and Fringe 

Climate Map in this paragraph shall be permitted to have a 

vapor retarder specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

installed on the exterior side of the wall insulation or be 

constructed with an external covering and sheathing with a 

combined permeance of not greater than 1.0 perm, provided 

the interior finish and interior wall panel materials have a 

combined permeance of not less than 5.0 perm. 

15. The Humid and Fringe Climate Map stated that “following areas of local 

governments (counties or similar areas, unless otherwise specified), listed by State are 

deemed to be within the humid and fringe climate areas shown on the Humid and Fringe 

Climate Map in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and the vapor retarder specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section may be applied to homes built to be sited within these 

jurisdictions”: 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 6 of 20
7

Alabama: Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Bulter, Chootaw, Clarke, Coffee, 

Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, 

Lowndes, Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, Washington, Wilcox. 

Florida: All counties and locations within the State of Florida. 

Georgia: Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien, Brantley, Brooks, 

Bryan, Calhoun, Camden, Charlton, Chatham, Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Colquitt, 

Cook, Crisp, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Evans, Glynn, 

Wayne, Grady, Irwin, Jeff Davis, Lanier, Lee, Liberty, Long, Lowndes, McIntosh, 

Miller, Mitchell, Pierce, Quitman, Randolph, Seminole, Tattnall, Terrell, Thomas, 

Tift, Turner, Ware, Worth. 

 Louisiana: All counties and locations within the State of Louisiana. 

 Mississippi: 

Adams, Amite, Clairbourne, Clarke, Copiah, Covington, Forrest, Franklin, 

George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, Issaquena, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, 

Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lawrence, Lincoln, Pearl River, Perry, Pike, 

Rankin, Simpson, Smith, Stone, Walthall, Warren, Wayne, Wilkinson. 

North Carolina: Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus, New Hanover, Onslow, 

Pender. 

 South Carolina: 

Jasper, Beaufort, Colleton, Dorchester, Charleston, Berkeley, Georgetown, Horry. 

Texas Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atacosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bexar, 

Brazoria, Brazos, Brooks, Burleson, Caldwell, Calhoun, Cameron, Camp, Cass, 

Chambers, Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, De Witt, Dimmit, Duval, Falls, Fayette, 

Fort Bend, Franklin, Freestone, Frio, Gavelston, Goliad, Gonzales, Gregg, 

Grimes, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hidalgo, 

Hopkins, Houston, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, 

Kaufman, Kennedy, Kinney, Kleberg, La Salle, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, 

Limestone, Live Oak, Madison, Marion, Matagorda, Maverick, McMullen, 

Medina, Milam, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces, 

Orange, Panola, Polk, Rains, Refugion, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, 

San Jacinto, San Patricio, Shelby, Smith, Starr, Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, 

Upshur, Uvalde, Val Verde, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington, 

Webb, Wharton, Willacy, Williamson, Wilson, Wood, Zapata, Zavala. 

These respective Counties shall be referred to as the “Gulf Coast Region.” 

16. As the acting Director of Product Engineering for Fleetwood Homes stated 

in commenting to HUD on the proposed waiver: 

[t]o be able to put the vapor barrier on the exterior side 

(warm side) of the wall in hot, humid climates is very 

necessary to properly handle potential moisture problems... 

[w]ithout these exceptions the vapor barrier will remain on 

the inside in the hot, humid climate and moisture will be 

trapped in the home.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 7 of 20
8

(Comments by William Farish, P.E. in a letter dated January 17, 2005, to the HUD). 

17. Despite lobbying for and obtaining the waiver, Defendant failed to take 

advantage of the waiver HUD agreed was required. Defendant disingenuously alleges 

that it is impracticable to comply with the waiver. Again, as alleged, even prior to the 

waiver, there were other options available which did not require a vapor retarder on the 

living side of the walls, and an unlimited alternative construction provision that allowed 

manufacturers to meet the federal mandate of safe and durable housing through 

innovative construction designs and methods. Upon information and belief, Defendant 

chose to ignore these other options because the location of a vapor retarder on the living 

side of the walls was beneficial in the majority of the locations in which Defendant sold 

their homes, and changing the design for a minority of homebuyers would impact 

Defendant’s profits. The result was that Defendant sold a product in the Gulf Coast 

Region that is defective for that geographic region. Regardless, Defendant chose to sell 

homes to consumers in the Gulf Coast Region without informing them of this known 

defect and thus chose profit over conscience. 

18. However, if Defendant chooses to utilize option 1 of 24 CFR 3280.504(b) 

and place a vapor barrier on the ‘living side’ of the exterior walls, it still has a duty to 

take steps to ensure that option 1 is implemented correctly by ensuring the home 

performs in the manner prescribed in, among other things, sections 3280.103(b) 

(ventilation system ‘shall not create a negative air pressure...’) and/or 3280.504 

(‘Condensation control and installation of vapor retarders’) and/or 3280.505 (‘The 

opaque envelope shall be designed and constructed to limit air infiltration to the living 

area of the home. Any design, material, method or combination thereof which 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 8 of 20
9

accomplishes this goal may be used’) and/or 3280.303(b) (‘All construction methods 

shall be in conformance with accepted engineering practices...’). 

19. Any and all complaints to Defendant have resulted in inadequate relief and 

despite a reasonable opportunity and repeated complaints by countless individuals, 

Defendant merely at most offers to replace the gypsum wallboard on occasion. This does 

not remedy the cause of the problem as the new gypsum wallboard will deteriorate in the 

same manner as the replaced gypsum wallboard did. Defendant never informs the 

consumer of the known defect and fail to offer a full refund of the purchase price. 

20. The manufactured home that Defendant sold to Plaintiff was a dangerous 

product when manufactured and provided for sale in the Gulf Coast Region. As 

Defendant knew, the home created a substantial risk of excessive moisture and therefore 

created an extreme risk of mold growth and structural damage. This in turn created an 

unreasonable and serious risk of personal injury or death to Plaintiff, other residents of 

the home, and visitors to the home. 

21. Defendant warranted to Plaintiff that the manufactured home was free 

from defects in materials and/or workmanship, and Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation 

that his manufactured home would have proper construction appropriate for the region in 

which the manufactured home was sold. Defendant also promised expressly or as a 

matter of law impliedly to comply with all applicable building codes, including the HUD 

Code, Standards, and Regulations. 

22. The presence of the defect, which was negligently or fraudulently 

concealed by the Defendant, was material to the transaction because Plaintiff would not 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 9 of 20
10

have purchased the manufactured home if told that the manufactured home was defective 

for use with the Gulf Coast Region. 

23. Defendant manufactured a manufactured home, which the Plaintiff 

purchased on or about December 26, 2003. The purchase price of the home was 

$45,639.90. 

24. As part of the purchase price Defendant made a written express warranty 

to the Plaintiff. Defendant further warranted that any defects in the materials or 

workmanship in the home, which they were given notice of within the warranty period, 

would be repaired or remedied at no cost to the Plaintiff. 

25. The manufactured home manufactured by Defendant failed to perform, 

failed to serve as a suitable place or residence, and failed in its intended purpose. 

26. Subsequent to the failure of the manufactured home and notice by the 

Plaintiff to Defendant of such failure, Defendant has failed to effectuate any repair to the 

manufactured home. As such, the manufactured home continues to deteriorate 

structurally. 

27. Defendant has failed to honor the warranty or repair in that the 

manufactured home purchased was not fit for its intended use, was not merchantable at 

the date of the purchase and has continued to not be fit for its particular purpose, not 

withstanding efforts to repair the structure by Defendant. 

28. Pursuant to Code of Alabama, 1975 § 7-2-607(3), Plaintiff has given the 

Defendant notice of Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim prior to bringing this suit. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 10 of 20
11

29. Defendant had a duty to disclose the known defect to Plaintiff and they 

failed to do so, to Plaintiff’s detriment. Based on Defendant’s failure to disclose these 

material facts, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the manufactured home. 

30. Plaintiff discovered the fraudulent concealment within two (2) years of 

filing this lawsuit. 

31. Defendant entered into a pattern or practice of fraudulent conduct that 

included the fraud practiced on Plaintiff. 

32. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff depended on Defendant to advise 

Plaintiff as to quality and design of the manufactured home. Defendant had superior 

knowledge and bargaining power over Plaintiff. 

33. The conduct by Defendant was intentional, gross, wanton, malicious 

and/or oppressive. 

COUNT ONE

MAGNUSON MOSS WARRANTY ACT

15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

35. At the time of the manufacture, Defendant was a merchant, Defendant 

expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the manufactured home would be merchantable 

and/or fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was to be used and did expressly warrant 

that the manufactured home was expressly fit, designed, and built as directed by Plaintiff, 

and that the manufactured home was free from defects in materials and workmanship or 

any defects would be repaired or replaced under the warranty. 

36. The manufactured home, as delivered, was not free from defects in 

materials or workmanship. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 11 of 20
12

37. Defendant has failed or refused to correct the defects in the manufactured 

home and/or the warranty has failed in its essential purpose causing Plaintiff to suffer 

injury and damages. 

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, 

Plaintiff has been proximately damaged as follows: the defects in the manufactured 

home have substantially and severely impaired its use; the home is of decreased or lesser 

value than represented when purchased; Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish and 

emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, anger, fear, frustration, disappointment, 

worry, annoyance, inconvenience; and Plaintiff has been subject to toxic mold resulting 

from the defects and has suffered pain and discomfort. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees as allowed under 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. 

COUNT TWO

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

40. Defendant expressly warranted that the manufactured home would be 

merchantable and/or fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was to be used and did 

expressly warrant that the manufactured home was expressly fit, designed, and built as 

directed by Plaintiff, and that the manufactured home was free from defects in materials 

and workmanship or any defects would be repaired or replaced under the warranty. 

41. The manufactured home, as delivered, was not free from defects in 

materials or workmanship. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 12 of 20
13

42. Defendant has failed or refused to correct the defects in the manufactured 

home and/or the warranty has failed in its essential purpose causing Plaintiff to suffer 

injury and damages. 

43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, 

Plaintiff has been proximately damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT THREE

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

45. Defendant breached the implied warranty in that the manufactured home 

was not merchantable, was not fit for ordinary purposes, and was not built as represented 

or ordered. 

46. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant for the breach of implied warranty 

and has given Defendant opportunity to cure or attempt to cure the numerous defects, but 

Defendant has failed or refused to do so. 

47. As a direct result of the breach of implied warranty or merchantability by 

Defendant, Plaintiff was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 13 of 20
14

COUNT FOUR

BREACH OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

49. Defendant breached the implied warranty in that the manufactured home 

was not merchantable, was not fit for ordinary purposes, and was not built as represented 

or ordered. 

50. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant for the breach of fitness for 

particular purpose and has given Defendant opportunity to cure or attempt to cure the 

numerous defects, but Defendant has failed or refused to do so. 

51. As a direct result of the breach of fitness for particular purpose by 

Defendant, Plaintiff was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT FIVE

BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

53. Defendant breached the implied warranty in that the manufactured home 

was not merchantable, was not fit for ordinary purposes, and was not built as represented 

or ordered. 

54. Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant for the breach of warranty of 

habitability and has given Defendant opportunity to cure or attempt to cure the numerous 

defects, but Defendant has failed or refused to do so. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 14 of 20
15

55. As a direct result of the breach of warranty of habitability by Defendant, 

Plaintiff was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT SIX

NEGLIGENCE

56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

57. Defendant negligently manufactured, designed, built, and/or assembled 

the manufactured home which the Plaintiff purchased from Defendant. 

58. Defendant owed a duty to use due and ordinary care in the manufacture, 

design, building, and/or assembly of the manufactured home purchased by the Plaintiff. 

59. Defendant breached the duty owed to the Plaintiff by failing to use 

ordinary and due care in the manufacture, design, building, and/or assembly of the 

manufactured home which was purchased by the Plaintiff. 

60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff 

was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, and costs, as well as 

reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT SEVEN

WANTON

61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 15 of 20
16

62. Plaintiff alleges Defendant is guilty of wanton construction of the 

manufactured home. 

63. The workmanship and design are inferior, wantonly performed or done, 

leaving the manufactured home in a defective condition, thereby causing injury to the 

Plaintiff. 

64. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wantonness, Plaintiff 

was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, a separate amount as punitive 

damages, and costs, as well as reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT EIGHT

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the proceeding paragraphs. 

66. Defendant, by its acts and omissions described herein, has wrongfully 

appropriated, retained or otherwise possessed funds that rightfully in justice and equity 

belong to Plaintiff. Defendant has earned enormous profits from this deceptive act. 

67. Defendant should be required to disgorge all sums (e.g. the money earned 

from this practice) received from Plaintiff as a result of the illegal and improper manner 

in which Defendant placed for use by consumers a product (the Plaintiff’s home) into a 

region in which Defendant knew the home would become worthless. Plaintiff is also 

entitled to pre-judgment interest. 

COUNT NINE

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 16 of 20
17

69. Defendant failed to disclose the known defect (as set forth in the 

Background Facts) of the manufactured home to Plaintiff in connection with the 

purchasing of the manufactured home. 

70. The fraudulent concealment and omissions by Defendant was known and 

deliberate and was purposely designed to deceive Plaintiff. 

71. The concealment and omissions by Defendant was material in that 

Plaintiff would not have purchased the manufactured home absent the concealment and 

omissions of material facts by Defendant. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant 

had accurately and adequately disclosed all material facts. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraudulent concealment 

and omissions, Plaintiff was damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

73. Defendant’s fraudulent conduct was willful, wanton, and malicious, 

thereby entitling Plaintiff to the recover an amount to be determined at the trial of this 

action. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, a separate amount as punitive 

damages, and cost, as well as reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT TEN

NEGLIGENT/WANTON FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the proceeding paragraphs. 

75. Defendant negligently and/or wantonly fraudulently failed to disclose 

material facts to Plaintiff. 

76. Said action was a breach of the duty owed to Plaintiff. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 17 of 20
18

77. As a proximate consequence of said actions, Plaintiff was damaged as set 

forth in Paragraph 38. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, a separate amount as punitive 

damages, and cost, as well as reasonable attorney fees. 

COUNT ELEVEN

ALABAMA EXTENDED MANUFACTURERS LIABILITY DOCTRINE

78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 

79. Defendant was involved in the manufacture of a manufactured home, 

specifically, serial number DSDAL38810AB. 

80. Defendant manufactured the manufactured home and placed it in the 

stream of commerce where Plaintiff ultimately purchased the manufactured home on or 

about December 26, 2003. 

81. The manufactured home reached the Plaintiff as the ultimate users or 

consumers without any substantial change in its condition from the time it was 

manufactured by Defendant. 

82. Plaintiff used the manufactured home for its intended purpose, as a 

residence. 

83. The manufactured home, when it reached the Plaintiff, was in a defective 

condition and/or in a condition that was unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiff as the 

ultimate users or consumers. 

84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant placing a defective and/or 

unreasonably dangerous manufactured home in the stream of commerce, Plaintiff was 

damaged as set forth in Paragraph 38. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 18 of 20
19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in such an 

amount of compensatory damages as deemed appropriate, a separate amount as punitive 

damages, and costs, as well as reasonable attorney fees. 

/s/ C. Lance Gould ___________ _ 

 C. LANCE GOULD (ASB-0913-G66C) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

Attorneys at Law 

Post Office Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

(334) 269-2343 

(334) 954-7555 (fax) 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 19 of 20
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the original of the foregoing 

document in this Court and served a copy upon all Defendants of record as listed below

by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 

the 25th day of May, 2007. 

/s/ C. Lance Gould 

OF COUNSEL 

W. Scott Simpson 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, Alabama 35216 

Telephone: (205) 822-3422 

Facsimile: (205) 822-3618 

e-mail: wssimpson@bellsouth.net

Lee E. Bains, Jr. 

Thomas W. Thagard, III 

Edward S. Sledge IV 

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

(205) 254-1000 (Telephone) 

(205) 254-1999 (Facsimile) 

lbains@maynardcooper.com 

tthagard@maynardcooper.com 

sledge@maynardcooper.com

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 20 of 20