Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/84156879/Tornado-Masters-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 00:36:46
Document Index: 744826686

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 12', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§8', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 1', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 819', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§8', '§8', '§ 8', '§8', '§ 8', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§1', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8']

Tornado Masters Complaint
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA THE STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff,
GRADY HOLT, LESLIE A. HOLT, SAFESTEEL, INC., and TORNADO MASTERS OF ALABAMA, INC., Defendants.
~ CIVIL ACTION NO.:
(I V/ d
- IU' 7l)P!)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE, DECLARATORY, AND OTHER RELIEF COMES NOW, Plainti~
(':'l
the State of Alabama, by and through Attorney General Luther
Strange, and submits this Complaint against Grady Holt" Leslie Holt, SafeSteel, Ine., and Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. The allegations set forth are based upon infonnation, belief, and personal knowledge, all of which were acquired through investigation by the Plaintiff and its expert, investigators, and attorneys. To that end, the Attorney General alleges the following:
Defendants are in the business of constructing and selling storm shelters.' Through their business, the Defendants violated multiple provisions of Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act by soothing peoples' fear of tornadoes with the false guarantee, that their storm shelters will shield purchasers from the most powerful tornadoes. Alabamians unfortunately are all too aware of the dangers posed by tornadoes. To capitalize on that fear, the Defendants prey on potential
! The Federal Emergency Management Agency's technical definition for a "shelter" is a large room that a community or other big group could huddle in for safety; alternatively. a 4·safe room" is smaller and is intended for 16 or fewer persons. Because Tornado Masters uses "shelter" exciusivelY1 this Complaint does the same.
consumers by advertising their shelters as being "over built" beyond FEMA specifications. In the Defendants' words) "Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. designs [and] sells only engineered
shelters that exceed FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Agency) performance standards (FEMA rule 320). Each unit comes with certification stating that it will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." Intended to sweep up prospective customers, these false representations cannot be
substantiated. The reality, as told by the consumers, is that delivery of the shelters often took months longer than promised. And when delivered, the shelters the Defendants constructed sat on inadequate concrete bases, were not properly anchored, began to rot and rust within a few months, held standing water whenever it rained, and had inadequate ventilation. In spite of these and other deficiencies, the Defendants continue to represent that they have "the most secure and safe units on the market" because every shelter sold "exceed] s 1 all FEMA specifications." To make matters worse, Detendants falsely represented to multiple customers that the USDA had approved their shelters and had awarded them government grants to reduce the total cost. In operating this scheme, Defendants first inflated their prices and then told customers that they would handle the grant application. TheIl; without completing any government applications, they informed customers of their "approval." Finally-but not always-they transferred to the logos of
customers a grant notification form showing at the top of the page the side-by-side
Tornado Masters and the USDA. But as a USDA affidavit attests, it does not have a business relationship with Defendants, and it has no record of providing any grant amount to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area for a USDA grant. Put simply, Defendants concocted this scheme to convince Knighten and other customers that they were getting a federally approved shelter and a better value for their money-neither of which was true.
Defendants present themselves as reputable, earnest, and in the business of protecting Alabamians. But this facade belies the truth. Customers did not receive USDA grants or USDA~ approved shelters; they were tricked into thinking their shelters met government standards by phony grants that Defendants forged to discount an inflated price. And for their money,
consumers received, sometimes months after making down payments, shelters that were poorly
constructed, untested, and unsafe. In the face of that reality, Alabama law does not permit Defendants to sell these shelters with false guarantees. Indeed, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act requires Defendants to be good to their word. Because Defendants have not complied with that rule, the Attorney General respectfully requests relief under the Act.
This action is brought by Attorney General Luther Strange, through his Consumer
Protection Division, in the name of Alabama and under the authority of Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Ala. Code § 8-19-1 (1975). Jurisdiction is proper in the Circuit Court of Madison County because the Code of Alabama authorizes the Attorney General to initiate a suit
against any person. who has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or
practice declared to be unlawful under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Ala. Code § 8-19-1 (2002). Further, the acts and practices at issue took place in Madison County, and the Alabama Legislature has authorized this Court to hear actions for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Ala. Code § 12-11-31 (1975).
Defendant Gmdy Holt is an individual believed to reside in Toney, Alabama, part
of Madison County; and he works for Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. 3.
Defendant Leslie Holt is an individual believed to reside in Toney, Alabama, part
of Madison County, and he is the CEO of Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. Defendant Leslie Holt also works for SafeSteel, Inc, which is located at 7965 Highway 53 in Toney, Alabama.
SafeSteel, Inc. is a Tennessee
doing business at 7965
Highway 53, in Toney, Alabama, which is part of Madison County. In addition to operating in its own name, it also does business as Factory Direct Tornado Shelters, which is located at 5656 Highway 53 in Toney, Alabama. 5. Defendant Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. is an Alabama corporation located
at 7991 Highway 53, Toney, Alabama. It was incorporated on February 29,2008.
Background of the Business 6. Tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. began operating in February 2008 soon after
filing its articles of incorporation with the Alabama Secretary of State. (Articles of Incoxporation
for Tomado MasJm, Exhibit 1). SafeSteel, Inc. was incorporated in Tennessee in February 201l. (Articles of Inco!'lNration for SafeSteel, Inc., Exhibit 2). It began operating shortly thereafter, and in Apri12011, Tornado Masters mailed a letter to a customer that financed the purchase of his shelter to inform him that his future payments should be made to SafeSteel. (Change ..pf
Pawent Letter. Exhibit 3). The Attorney General has evidence that SatbSteel does business in
its own name and as Factory Direct Tornado Shelters. 4
As stated in its articles of incorporation, the Holts organized Tornado Masters for
the purpose of selling severe ..weather storm shelters. (E('hibit 1). Shortly after filing, the Holts built a website, www.safefromstorms.com, on which Tornado Masters advertises that it has "the most diverse of shelter types that include steel (over 26 standard models), concrete, and custom on site built above & below ground units," (Snapshot #1 from www.aafefrornstonns.com. Exhibit 4). Similarly, the website states that Tornado Masters "designs [and] sells only engineered shelters that exceed FEMA's (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
performance standards (FEMA rule 320)." Tornado Masters also guarantees that U[a]ll [shelter] doors exceed FEMA guidelines including our sliding pocket door." (Snapshot #2 from
www.safefi.omstonns.com.ExhibitS).Byits
own words, every one of the advertised 26 models
exceeds FEMA 320 specifications. And to reassure potential customers, Tornado Masters states
that it is "fully licensed and insured (License No. 92048)j" (Exhibit 4).
In addition to advertising the worthiness of its shelters on its website, Defendants
also make these claims directly to consumers and in magazines, pamphlets, and fliers distributed throughout northern Alabama. Q'QmadQ Master's Magazine Advertisement,
Exhibit 6; Tornado
Master's Pamphlet. Exhibit 7; Tornado MMter's Flier, Exhibit 8). While the medium changes, without fail Defendants consistently represent that it used only design. structural engineers to develop its products, that all of their shelters exceeded FaMA 320 performance criteria, and that each shelter would withstand Defendants withstand the destructive force of an EF~5 tornado. (Exhibits 4-8).
also advertise that every purchased shelter comes with a certificate that it will an EF~5 tornado. While the worthiness of this certificate is contested, it is
that numerous, if not all, customers never actually received such a certificate.
(Tornado Master's Certificate of Warranty,
Customers received a warranty of workmanship.
Exhibit 9). Finally, Defendants also orally represented to multiple consumers that their shelters had been tested by the Texas Tech Wind Science & Engineering Research Center ("WiSE"), and that a licensed engineer certified every shelter sold. WiSE does not list any of the Defendants in
its list of persons and companies who have undergone testing. (WiSE's List of Tested Shelters,
Exhibit 10)2.
The Attorney General first became aware of the Defendants' activities in August .
2011 when the Better Business Bureau forwarded complaints 'it received from consumers. By following through with those complaints and with the Attorney General's own investigative in
efforts, the Attorney General learned that the Defendants made several representations=those Paragraphs 7 and 8 above and others-that do not bear out as truthful.
FEMA 320 PerjOrmg,1)ce Criteria
10. FE:MA 320 is a set of design specifications that meet certain performance criteria,
and that manufacturers may use in constructing shelters. While Alabama has not passed explicit legislation requiring builders to meet FEMA 320, the Alabama Manufactured Housing
Commission has assumed the position that builders must meet FEMA 320. 1L Meeting FEMA 320 is a tall task. The specifications span 18 pages and contain
distinct design criteria for each type of shelter, be it above-ground, in-ground, steel, or concrete. Regardless of the chosen shelter type, FEMA 320 specifies what materials must be used, what degrees angles need to be, and what the precise measurements of the doorframe, the ventilation shaft, the walls, and even the thickness of the floor must be. All that to say, declaring that a
2 See also WiSEts Uott of Tested Components available at http://vvww,depts.ttu.edulweweblResearchlDebrislmpact!Reports/ComponentlLUpdate_feb2012.pdf;WiSE'sList Tested Shelter Doors avatlable at http://www.depts.ttu.edulweweblResearchiDebrlsImpactfReportsidoors_web_update _nov2011.pdf.
shelter meets or exceeds FEMA 320 is a very specific representation, generalized claim that a shelter is sturdy and strong. 12.
entirely apart from the
FEMA 320 was developed and tested at WiSE. (FEMA 320 Performance Criteri§,
Exhibit 11). Upon request, WiSE will perform a debris-impact resistance test on a shelter door. This test simulates 250 mile-per-hour winds by shooting a fifteen pound two-by-four wood stud
that reaches a horizontal speed of 100 miles-per-hour upon impact with the shelter door. (NSSA
Director's Message, Exhibit 12). If the shelter door is perforated-meaning enters the shelter by breaching the door-then any part of the stud
the door does not meet FEMA 320. Even an un-
perforated door, however, is not sufficient for a design to meet FEMA 320. To meet that standard, a manufacturer
must consult and hire a third-party engineer who will determine
whether the other performance criteria are met. (See Exhibit 12 at 2). These criteria include ensuring that the shelter is adequately anchored down, that the proper materials are used, that there is adequate ventilation, and for above-ground shelters, that there is sufficiently thick
reinforced concrete to which the shelter is anchored. 13. If a third-party engineering company determines through testing that a shelter
design meets FEMA 320, it will present the manufacturer with a certification letter stating so. (Example of Certification Letter, Exhibit 13). As described in Paragraphs 7~8, Defendants
represent that they sell more than 26 standard model shelters plus custom ..built shelters. Yet in response to the Attorney General's demands, Defendants have thus far only produced seven design drawings, some ofwhich contain no FEMA~320 certification language, and at least one of which is for a community-sized none of the Defendants-may shelter that only a general contractor-a qualification met by
build under Alabama law. Also, none of Defendants' designs
appear to be exact copies of the designs in FEMA 320 meaning that Defendants' designs must be
physically tested prior to being approved for mass production. Defendants have provided no proof of testing either at WiSE or anywhere else. WiSE's website listing of all manufacturers who have submitted their shelters for testing does not list any of the Defendants. (Exhibit 10). 14. Even if Defendants had FEMA 320 designs for all of its shelter types, the
evidence shows that Defendants have not constructed shelters that comply with their own
designs. Many discrepancies are visible from a simple comparison of what FEMA 320 requires and what Defendants actually produce. Any deviations from approved designs are material because FEMA 320 states that any "substitution of either materials or design concepts may
decrease the level of occupant protection and/or increase the possibility of personal injury during an extreme wind event." (Exhibit 11 at 1).
15. Equally important, neither FEMA nor the National Storm Shelter Association
actually certify or approve shelters. (NSSA on Certification Misus~ Exhibit 14). Rather, FEMA publishes FEMA 320 so that builders and the public can rely upon designs already submitted to rigorous testing that they can then use to construct a safer-than-average shelter. FEMA does not
certify that its designs are flawless, or that the designs will create a shelter able to withstand every tornado or hurricane, (See Exhibit 11 at 1). Nevertheless, the Defendants represent that every shelter they sell will withstand an EF~5 tornado, and Defendants told at least one customer that her shelter had been tested and approved by FEMA. Defendants do so despite there being no
proof that Defendants' designs-the
few that have been proffered-were
actually submitted to
testing before mass construction or inspection after the first shelter was built to ensure design compliance. 16. A newly designed shelter must be physically tested before mass construction
commences to determine whether the design will yield a shelter that withstands the rigorous
conditions it were designed on paper to stand up to. Similarly, after a manufacturer
constructs a shelter from a certified design, there must be an inspection of the shelter to ensure
that it was built to the specifications required on paper. Deviating from either requirement
creates an unnecessary and substantial risk, and Defendants have presented no proof they have done either with any of their shelter designs. Finally, FEMA 320 certification contemplates compliance with these general standards of design, testing, and inspection.
pefendants ' shelters wge not built as represented or required and have many de.,f!#cts
17. Defendants have persisted in representing that they sell only engineered shelters
exceeding FEMA 320 despite having serious quality control problems. First, the anchoring of the shelters is inadequate. In Defendants' above-ground steel models, there is no consistency in the number of bolts used to anchor the shelters. Of two shelters, both four feet by six feet, one has 11 anchor bolts and the other has 20. Similarly~ of two four-by-eight feet shelters, one has 22 anchor bolts, the other 16. 18. Another problem with Defendants' anchoring is that FEMA 320 requires above-
ground shelters to be built with a sufficiently thick reinforced concrete base to ensure that a tornado does not rip the concrete and the shelter up in a serious wind event. (See Exhibit 11; see
also Exhibit 13 (noting that the concrete base must be at least 20 inches thick». Defendants, on
many occasions, built shelters in garages on top of existing concrete slabs that were only threeto-four inches thick even though FEMA 320 and Defendants' own design specifications required concrete more than twice as thick. Defendants' shelters also exhibit weld deficiencies that could compromise their structural integrity, 19. Likewise, Defendants built and installed shelters intended solely for indoor usage
outside where rain and other physical elements can damage and deteriorate the shelters-and
thus weaken their structural integrity. The inadequate concrete and bolt anchoring becomes even more problematic with indoor shelters installed outside with no barriers to help reduce the sheer wind power present in serious weather events. These shelters are plagued with leaks, standing water, and defectively designed ventilation shafts that may allow flying debris to enter the
shelter. Many of these shelters are equipped with sliding doors with a set of pins that have handles that are too small to grip. This defect means that occupants may not be able to exit the shelter if the door is jammed or struck with debris. Finally, at least one shelter had a gap of several inches between the sliding door and the framework that required weather stripping to be applied to prevent rain from entering the shelter. (KW,~n 20. Affidavit, Exhibit 15).
Defendants constructed in-ground shelters that are a serious and unnecessary risk
to occupants on fair-weather days. Some of these shelters have inadequate ventilation, or in some cases, no ventilation whatsoever. The limited static air in these shelters creates a substantial suffocation risk for occupants. Some of these shelters also have defective doors. In the case of one shelter door that is parallel with the ground and opens outward, the door-opening assistance that should slowly lower the heavy steel door closed is broken, so instead the door slams shut. This creates a serious risk that children and adult occupants may lose fingers or break arms while trying to race into the shelter. This door also has no latching mechanism to keep it open, meaning
that a heavy gust of wind may slam it shut on someone's hands or head. Other in-ground shelters
completely lack ventilation. (Stone Contr~ 21.
Exhibit 17).
In addition to those problems, this particular shelter has not been covered with
soil as required, which further limits its protective capability. On the inside, the shelter has a defective ladder, which in spite of a ladder lock, will retract into the wall when someone tries to climb out of the shelter. This defect can cause a person to fall back and hit her head on the door
or the floor, Likewise, the metal ladder lock itself, which flies out when someone climbs the ladder, may harm someone. Also, the shelter was installed on a floating foundation in violation of FEMA 320. This creates a serious risk that heavy rainfall or simply time alone will cause the shelter to Boat out of the ground, Water can be heard sloshing around whenever someone paces inside the shelter. Related1y, water is leaking into the shelter, which has standing water about an inch high inside the shelter. 22. Apart from the serious concerns about the safety and structure of Defendants' also misled multiple consumers who were forced to wait weeks, even
shelters, Defendants
months longer than promised, for their shelters to be delivered. One consumer purchased his shelter on May 2, 2011, and ten months later, he has still received no shelter despite making a down payment of $3642 two days after he signed his contract and despite repeatedly calling Defendants. (Storie ContraQt, Exhibit 18). He has received no refund. 23. Defendants' Finally, Defendants have committed numerous omissions. For instance, none of shelters come with any manufacturer's label, any operating instructions, or any
warnings. Also, Defendants have failed to acquire and maintain all of its required licenses including city business licenses, and/or Alabama Manufactured. Housing licenses; neither have they applied for building pennits when required. (GrQY!l.ds_ Affidavit Exhibit 19; Phillips
Affidavit. Exhibit 20). Defendants have ignored these requirements and even advertise that they have the authorization and capability of building community-sized license from the General Contractor's shelters despite not having a
Licensure Board with whom any builder constructing a Exhibit
project costing more than $50,000 must earn a license. (~chool Shelters AdvWsm.ten_t
21). ,Without earning this license, in 2009, Defendants constructed an $80tOOO addition onto Huntsville Christian Academy. (HCA ContraQt, Exhibit 22). The result of this expedition was an
unsafe, unlicensed, and thoroughly inadequate shelter, which has no lights, flammable egg-foam crating along the walls, little or ventilation, and dangerous in-swing doors that are hazardous in a panic situation.
Defendants represeated that federal grants had been awarded
On multiple occasions in 2011, Defendants represented that customers had been
approved for USDA grants worth up to $3500. (Knighten Grant Notification., Exhibit 23; Mitchell Contract
& Grant Notification.
Exhibit 24), When approached
customers, Defendants told them that they may be eligible for government grants that would reduce the price of their shelters. Defendants then offered to complete the grant applications on behalf of the customers. Then, without completing any applications, Defendants informed customers of their approval for the grants. Coinciding with this grant approval was the assumption that the USDA had approved the design and structure of the shelter. 25. Defendants next-but not always-provided
customers-grantees with a "Federal
Grant Fund Disbursing Notification Document" that bore the logos of Tomado Masters and the
USDA, stated the purchaser's name and the address where the shelter was to be installed,
provided the amount of the grant, listed Tornado Masters of Alabama, USA, Inc. as the contractor, and gave a contract number that appears to be derived from the date of the shelter purchase, as reflected by matching customer receipts. (Knightt.~ CQntragt Exhibit 16; see also Exhibit 22). Below that, the grants contain some boilerplate language and a ~'Final Tenus and Conditions" section, which provides that the grant of a specific dollar amount applied for by the customer shall be applied to the contract listed in the "agreement" and shall be paid to Tornado Masters of Alabama USA, Inc. The contracts for many customers, including those without
hardcopy grants, either list grant deductions in the price amount or have unexplained deductions. (Exhibits 16, 17, 18,24; Ricketts's Contract, Exhibit 25). 26.
Through the affidavit of Joshua Tessier, the Rural Development office of the
USDA has explained that it does not have a business relationship with imy of the Defendants,
and that it has no records of providing a grant to Knighten, whose home it says is in an ineligible
area for a USDA grant. (USDA Affidavit. Exhibit 26). Similarly, other customers whom
Defendants told had been approved for federal grants; and who have grant deductions on their contracts, never received a "Federal Grant Fund Disbursing Notification Document," but relied
on Defendants' assertions all the same,
Given the above paragraphs and under the authority conferred upon him by the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Attorney General alleges that the Defendants committed the following deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of their trade and in commerce:
COUNT ONE: DEFENDANTS CAUSED CONFUSION OR MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE SOURCE, SPONSORSHIP, APPROVAL, OR CE.RTIFICATION OF GOODS OR SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF ALA CODE § 8·.f9 S(ll 11975}
28. herein. 29,
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-27 as if fully alleged
consumers that Defendants had applied for government grants on their behalf, got those grants approved, and that the proceeds of those grants had been applied toward the purchase of their shelters.
Through the testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not
have a business relationship or agreement with Defendants, and that they have no record of providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area for a USDA grant. Like Knighton, Defendants misled other consumers with false statements of facts and forged USDA grants. Accordingly, Defendants created the misunderstanding that they were working alongside
the USDA, that the USDA was the source of grants, and that the shelters had received government approval or certification-none 31. of which was the case.
By creating the misunderstanding that Defendants' shelters were approved,
certified, or sponsored by the USDA, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19-5(2).
32. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a very particular representation
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter sold will withstand an EF~5 tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320. 33. This representation cannot be substantiated, and it causes the misunderstanding shelters rather than in a competitor's. Similarly, it
that purchasers will be safer in Defendants'
leads consumers to believe that Defendants' shelters are certified, approved, or that an engineer is the source of every shelter sold when that is not the case given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein. 34. By creating the misundemanding that they sell "only engineered shelters,"
Defendants violated Ala. Code §8..19~5(2).
35. Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred.
Defendants took these actions despite having not provided FEMA 320 design
specifications for all of the shelter types they sell. Defendants have also presented no evidence that all of their shelters were designed or physically tested by an engineer. Defendants have caused the misunderstanding that their sliding-door design and all other door designs have
FEMA approval when that is not the case given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein. 37. By creating the misundi!rNtanding that "aU doors exceed FEMA guJde1ines
including [their] sliding pocket door," Defendants violated Ala; Code §8..19-5(2).
38. Defendants represent that every shelter sold comes with a certificate
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." Multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received any such certificate even after requesting one. This
representation causes confusion about the approval and sponsorship of the shelters. Similarly, the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein create serious doubts that Defendants' shelters would withstand an EF~5 tornado.
By creating the misunderstanding that each person who purchases a shelter
receives a certificate statlng that the shelt8r will withstand an EF·.j tornado, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8... 5(2). Defendants also violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(2) by creating the 19... misunderstanding that some particularly qualified person or group had certified the shelter or
that the sheliers were worthy of such certification. 40. Defendants formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy=including which they consistently advertise that every shelter
magazine ads, fliers, and websites-under
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. In so doing, Defendants are representing that all of their shelters are sponsored, approved, or certified as FEMA 320 compliant. Defendants make these
representations despite selling shelters with one or more of the following problems, defects, or dangers: an inadequate number of anchor bolts, an insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors, defective ladder pins, floating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors, missing gas cylinders for doors, improper shelter locations, lack of physical testing, lack of licensing, the lack of a FEMA-320 design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing labels, or operating instructions.
41. By causing the misunderstanding
that every shelter sold meets or exceeds
FEMA 320 in spite of the defects Usted above, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(2). 42. Defendants have orally represented to consumers that their shelters were tested at
WiSE where they passed the debris-impact resistance test. However, no evidence has been presented that any of the more than 26 shelter designs sold by Defendants has been tested at WiSE. For that reason, Defendants have created the misunderstanding that their shelters have special approval, sponsorship, or certification from WiSE. 43.
By causing the misunden1anding that some oltheir shelters have been te~1edat
WiSE, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19-5(2).
COIJNI TWO: DEFENDANTS CAUSED CONFUSION OR MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE AFFILIATION, CONNECTION, OR ASSOCIATION WITH. OR CERTIFICATION BY ANOTHER IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE § 8-19-5(3) (1975)
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-43 as if fully alleged
Defendants created confusion and misunderstanding by representing to consumers
that they had applied for government grants on their behalf, got those grants approved, and that
the proceeds of those grants had been applied toward the purchase of their shelters. These representations created the impression that Defendants were working alongside the USDA, that
the USDA was the source of grants, and that Defendants were associated, connected, or affiliated with the USDA~none 46. of which was the casco
Through the testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not or agreement with Defendants, and that they have no record of
have a business relationship
providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area for a USDA grant. Like Knighten, Defendants misled other consumers with false statements of facts and forged USDA
By creating the misundel'Standing
were associated, connected,
or afjiliated with the USDA, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19-5(3). 48. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a very particular representation
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter Defendants sell will withstand an EF~5 tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320.
49. The representation that every shelter sold is "engineered" cannot be substantiated,
and it creates the misunderstanding
that Defendants'
shelters are safer than a competitor's. shelters are certified, associated, or
Similarly, it leads consumers to believe that Defendants'
affiliated with an engineer when that is not the case given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein. 50.
By causing the misunderstanding that they sell "only englneered shelters, n
Defendants violated Ala. Code §8..19-5(3). 51. Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also
orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred. 52. Defendants created this misunderstanding despite not having FEMA 320~certified
designs for all of its shelter types. Defendants have also presented no evidence that all of their shelters were designed and physically tested by an engineer. Defendants have also caused the misunderstanding
that their sliding-door design and all of their other designs have FEMA
approval or certification despite their having made no such showing. 53. By causing the misunderstantling that "aU doors exceed FEMA guidelines
including (their] sliding pocket door," Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8... 19..5(3). 54. Defendants represent that every shelter sold comes with a certificate that the
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." Multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received representation any such certificate even after requesting one. This
causes confusion and misunderstanding about the certification and approval of
Defendants' shelters. Similarly, the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein create serious doubts that Defendants' shelters would withstand an EF-S
55. By causing the misunderstanding that each person who purchases a shelter
receives a certificate stating that the shelter will with~1and an EF~5 tornado, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8~19-5(3).Defendants
al.fiO
violated Ala. Code § 8~19 ..5(3) by creating the
mlsunder~1andlng that a quaUjled person or group certified the shelters or that the shelters
were worthy o/such certification.
56. Defendants have formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy-including
magazlne ads, fliers, and websites-under
which they consistently advertise that every shelter
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. In so doing, Defendantsare are associated representations with and certified as FEMA
representing that all of their shelters
320 compliant.
Defendants make these
despite selling shelters with one or more of the following problems:
inadequate number of anchor bolts, an insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors,
defective ladder pins, floating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors, missing gas cylinders for doors, improper locations, lack of physical
testing, lack of licensing, the lack of a FEMA~320 design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing labels, or operating instructions.
57. In light of all the problems detailed above, Defendants have created the
misunderstanding that all of its shelters exceed FEMA 320.
58. By causing the misunderstanding that every shelter sold exceeds FEMA 320 in
~pite of the many defects listed above, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(3).
Defendants have orally represented that their shelters were tested at WiSE where
they passed the debris-impact resistance test. However, no evidence has been presented that any of the more than 26 shelter designs sold by Defendants has been tested at WiSE. For that reason,
Defendants have created the misunderstanding that their shelters have been certified by WiSE or
that they are affiliated, associated, or connected with WiSE.
By creating the mi..funderstanding that their shelters have been tested at WISE,
Defendants violated Ala. Code §8~19~S(3).
COUNT THREE: DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED THAT GOODS OR SERVICES HAVE SPONSORSHIP, APPROVAL,.t CHARACTERISTICS, INGREDIENTS! USES, BENEFITS1 OR QUALITIES THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE OD, THAT A PERSON DOES NOT HAVE IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE § tJ...19"S1!l 61. herein. 62. Defendants represented to consumers that they had applied for government grants The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-60 as if fully alleged
on their behalf, and had those grants approved, and that the proceeds of those grants had been applied toward the purchase of their shelters. These representations created the impression that
Defendants were working alongside the USDA, that the USDA was the source of grants, and that
the shelters had received government sponsorship and approval. Defendants also represented that they had the sponsorship and approval of the USDA to receive the proceeds of the grants=none
of which was true.
63. Through the testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not
have a business relationship or agreement with Defendants, and that they have no record of providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area tbr a USDA grant. Like Knighten, Defendants misled other consumers with false statements of facts and forged USDA
64. By falsely representing that the USDA had awarded consumers federal grants,
Defendants violated Ala. Code §B... 19~5(5).
65. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a very particular representation
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter they sell will withstand an Epw5 tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320.
The representation that every shelter sold is "engineered" cannot be substantiated defects, and dangers associated 20 with Defendants' shelters. It
given the many problems,
represents to consumers that the shelters have benefits, qualities, approval, and sponsorship they do not have. Similarly, it leads consumers to believe that Defendants' shelters are certified, that
they have benefits or qualities that a competitor's does not, and that they are of a higher standard of quality than they actually are. 67. By falsely representing that they sell "only engineered shelters," Defendants
violated Ala. Code §8-19..5(5).
68. Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred. 69. Defendants created this misunderstanding despite not having FEMA 320 design
specifications for all of its shelter types. Defendants have also not presented evidence that all of its shelters were designed or physically tested by an engineer. Defendants have caused the misunderstanding that their sliding-door design and all of their other designs have FBMA
approval despite having presented no such evidence. 70. Defendants have represented to customers that their sliding-door design and all of
the other designs have FEMA approval, that their doors have benefits or qualities that they not have, and that they are of a higher quality than they actually are. 71. By falsely representing to customers that "all doors exceed FEMA guideUnes
including [their] sliding pocket door," Defendants lItoialedAla. Code §8~19--S(5).
72. Defendants represented that every shelter sold comes with a certificate that the
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF~5 tornado." But multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received any such certificate. This misrepresentation led consumers to
believe their shelters had sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
or qualities that they did not
actually have. Similarly, the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the .shelters and incorporated herein create serious doubts that Defendants' shelters would withstand an EF~5
73. By falsely representing that each person who purchases a shelter receives a
certificate stating that the shelter will withstand an EF-5 tornado, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19 ..5(5). Defendants also violated Ala. Code § 1J...19-5(5) by repre..fjentlngthat a qualified person or group certifled the shelters or that the shelters were worthy of such
74. Defendants have formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy-including
which they consistently advertise that every shelter that ,Defendants' shelters have
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. This creates the misunderstanding
FEMA approval, have characteristics, benefits, or uses that they do not have, and that they are a higher quality than they truly are. Defendants make these representations with one or more of the following problems: an inadequate despite selling shelters
number of anchor bolts, an
insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors, defective ladder pins, floating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors, missing gas cylinders for doors, improper locations, lack of physical testing, lack of licensing, the lack of a FEMA-320 design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing instructions. labels, or operating
falsely representing that every shelter sold exceeds FEMA 320 in spite of the
defecm' Usted above, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19--5(5).
they passed the debris-impact resistance test. However, no evidence has been presented that any
of the 26 shelter designs sold by Defendants has been tested there. For that reason, Defendants have represented that their shelters have sponsorship, approval; characteristics, benefits,
qualities, or uses that they do not have. 77. By falsely representing that their shelters have been tested at WiSE, Defendants
violated Ala. Code §8~19_,5(5).
COUNT FOUR: DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED THAT GOODS OR SERVICES ARE OF A PARTICULAB..STANDARD. QUALITY, OR GRADE, OR THAT GOODS ARE OF A PARTICULAR §TYLE OR MODEL, IF THEY ARE OF ANOTHER, IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE § 8-.)9-5(7) (1975) 78. The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-77 as if fully alleged
herein. 79. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter sold will withstand an EF-5 tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320. 80. The representation that every shelter sold is ~'engineered" cannot be substantiated
given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein. It represents to consumers that the shelters are of a higher standard, quality, or grade than they actually are. 81. By falsely representing that they sell "only engineered shelters," Defendants
violated Ala: Code §8~19... 5(7).
82. Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also 23
orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred. 83. Defendants made this representation despite not having FEMA 320 design
specifications for all of its shelter types. Defendants have also not presented evidence that all of its shelters were designed or physically tested by an engineer. Defendants have represented that their sliding-door design and all of their other designs have FEMA approval despite having presented no such evidence.
By falsely representing that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including
[their] sliding pocket door," Defendants violated AIo. Code §8-19-5(7).
85. Defendants represented that every shelter sold comes with a certificate that the
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." But multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received any such certificate. This represents to consumers that the shelters are of a higher standard, quality, or grade than they actually are given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein.
By falsely representing that each person who purchases a shelter receives a
certificate stating thm the shelter will withstand an EF-5 tornado, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-05(7). Defendants also violflted Ala. Code § 8-19-5(7) by represendng that a quaUjied person or group certified the shelters or that the shelters were worthy of such certification.
8? Defendants have formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy-including
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. Defendants are representing that their shelters are of a higher standard, quality, or grade than they actually are. Defendants make these representations despite
selling shelters with one or more of the following problems: an inadequate number of anchor bolts, an insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door
pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors, defective ladder pins, floating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors,
missing gas cylinders for doors, improper locations, lack of physical testing, lack of licensing,
the lack of aFEMA-320 operating instructions. 88. By falsely representing that every shelter sold exceeds FEMA J20 despite the design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing labels, or
defects listed above, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19-5(7) •.
89. Defendants have orally represented that their shelters were tested at WiSE where resistance test. As such, Defendants have represented that their
they passed the debris-impact
shelters are of a higher standard, quality, or grade than they actually are. However, no evidence has been presented that any of the more than 26 shelter designs sold by Defendants have been
tested there. 90.
representing that their shelters hlWe been msted at WiSE, Defendants
violat8d Ala. Code §8~J9~5(7).
COUNT FIVE: DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED GOODS OR SERVICES WITH INTENT NOT TO SELL THEM AS ADVERTISED IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE § 8-19-5(9) (1975) 91. The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1~90 as if fully alleged
92. Defendants advertised the availability of federal grants and offered to complete
grant applications for consumers despite intending not to complete grant applications with the
USDA, but instead to forge fraudulent grants. Through the .testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not have a business relationship or agreement with Defendants,
and that they have no record of providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible
area for a USDA grant. Like Knighten, Defendants intentionally misled other consumers with false statements of facts and forged USDA grants. 93. By intending to sen shelters under the false advertisement that federal grants.
would reduce the cost of consumers' shelters, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19~S(9).
94. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a very particular representation
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter sold will withstand an EF~S tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320. 95. Defendants intentionally advertised this standard of quality despite knowing that
they sold shelters that had not undergone the rigorous design testing and inspection required to
96. By intending to sell shelters under the false advertisement that every shelter
sen Is engineered despite knowing
0' more
of shelters was not so engineered,
Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(9).
Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred. 98. Defendants advertised this standard of quality despite intending to sell shelters
that had not been certified, tested, and approved as exceeding FEMA 320.
By intending to seQshelters under the false advertisement that "all doors exceed
FEMA guidelines including lthelr] sliding pocket door," Defendants violated Ala. Code § 819..5(9).
Defendants represented that every shelter sold comes with a certificate that the
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." Multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received any such certificate even after requesting one. 101.
By intending to sell shelters under the false advertisement that each person
'purchasing a shelter received a certijicate that the purchased shelter wiU withstand an EP··,j tomado, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19-5(9).
102. Defendants have formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy-including
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. Defendants devised this strategy and sold shelters with this
advertisement despite knowing that they had not had all of their shelters approved under FEMA 320. Defendants intended to sell shelters under the FEMA 320 label despite knowing that some of the shelters had one or more of the following problems: an inadequate number of anchor bolts, an insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors and ladder pins, tloating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors, missing gas cylinders for doors, improper locations, lack of physical testing, lack of licensing, lack ofa FEMA-320 design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing labels, or operating instructions.
103. By intending to seQ shelters with the false advertisement that every shelter
sold exceeds FEMA 320 despite knowing of one or more of the defects listed above,
Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19.5(7).
COUNT SIX: DEFENDANTS MADE A FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT OF FACT CONCERNING THE REASONS FOIL EXISTENCE OF. OR AMOUNTS OF, PRICE REDUCTIONS IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE § 8-19-5(11) <1975}
104. herein. lOS.
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-103 as if fully alleged
Defendants represented to consumers that they had applied for government grants
on their behalf, and had those grants approved, and that the proceeds of those grants had been applied toward the purchase of their shelters. These representations created the impression that Defendants were working alongside the USDA, and that the USDA was the source of grants. 106. Through the testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not
have a business relationship or agreement with Defendants, and that they have no record of providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area for a USDA grant. Like Knighten, Defendants misled other consumers with false statements of facts and forged USDA
107. By falsely Informing cm10mers that federally approved grants had reduced the prices olthel, shelters, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8.-19-5(11).
COUNT SEVEN: DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SHIP GOODS OR FURNISl! §ERVICES WITHIN THE TIME ADVERTISED OR OTHERWISE REPRESENTED IN VIOLATION OF ALA. CODE 1..8-19-5(17) (t97S)
108. herein. 109.
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1-107 as if fully alleged
Defendants contracted with consumers for goods and took down payments at the
time of the contract or shortly thereafter. Defendants then failed to deliver in the time advertised.
In one egregious incident of many, Defendants took a down payment of $3642 on May 2, 2011, and as of March 2, 2012, ten months later, Defendants have yet to deliver the consumer's shelter despite repeated calls and demands. Neither have Defendants refunded the down payment.
110. By falling to deliver shelten in the time advertised and represented after taking
payment for goods, Defendants vlolatl!d Ala. Code §8-19 ... 5(17).
COUNT EIGHT: DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN UNCONSCIONABLE, FALSE, MISLEADING. AND/OR DECEPTIVE ACTS AND/OR PRACTICES IN THE CONDUCT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN ViOLATION OF ALA. CODE § 8-19 S(27l (t97S)
111. herein. 112.
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1MIlO as if fully alleged
Defendants were working alongside the USDA, that the USDA was the source of grants, and that the shelters had received government sponsorship and approval. Defendants also represented that they had the sponsorship and approval of the USDA to receive the proceeds of the grants-none of which was true. 113. Through the testimony of Joshua Tessier, the USDA has indicated that it does not or agreement with Defendants, and that they have no record of
providing a grant to Knighten, whom it says lives in an ineligible area for a USDA grant. Like Knighten, Defendants misled other consumers with false statements of facts and torged USDA grants.
The diNtribution offrauduumtfederal
grants was both false and deceptive, and
in doing so, Defendants violated Ala. Code §8... 9... 1 5(27).
lIS. In all of their advertisements Defendants make a very particular representation
that they sell "only engineered shelters." This declaration appears alongside the claim that every shelter sold will withstand an EF~5 tornado because every design exceeds FEMA 320. 116. The advertisement that every shelter sold is "engineered" cannot be substantiated
given the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein. It represents to consumers that the shelters are of a higher standard, quality, or grade than they actually are. 117. By representing that they seQ "only engineered shelters," Defendants violated
Ala. Code § 8-19-5(27).
118. Defendants advertise on their website and in their fliers and other advertisements
that "all doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their] sliding pocket door." Defendants also orally represented to at least one consumer that FEMA had actually tested and approved the shelter design when that had not occurred. 119. Defendants created this misunderstanding despite not having FEMA 320 design
specifications for all of its shelter types. Defendants have also not presented evidence that all of its shelters were designed or physically tested by an engineer. Defendants have caused the .misunderstanding that their sliding-door design arid all of their other designs have FBMA
approval despite having presented no such evidence. 120. By representing that "aU doors exceed FEMA guidelines including [their}
sliding poeket door, 11Defendants violated Ala. Code §8-19 5(27).
shelter "will withstand the destructive force of an EF-5 tornado." But multiple purchasers have indicated that they never received any such certificate. This representation causes confusion
about the certification of the shelter. Similarly, the problems, defects, and dangers associated with the shelters and incorporated herein create serious doubts that Defendants' withstand an EF~5 tornado. 122. By falsely represent",,.g that each person who purchases a shelter receives a shelters would
certJj1cate stating that the shelter will withstand an EF-S tornado, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(27). Defendants also violated Ala. Code § 8... 9-5(27) by representing that a 1 qUalifled person or group certified the shelters or that the shelters were worthy of such certification.
123. Defendants have formulated a comprehensive advertising strategy=lncluding
they sell exceeds FEMA 320. Defendants make these representations despite selling shelters with one or more of the following problems: an inadequate number of anchor bolts, an insufficient amount of reinforced concrete, a deteriorating concrete foundation, door pins that are too small, little or no ventilation, defective doors, defective ladder pins, floating foundations, water leaks, standing water, corroded metal, poor welds, gaps between doors, missing gas cylinders for doors, improper locations, lack of physical testing, lack of licensing, the lack of a FEMA~320 design under which to build, and no warnings, manufacturing labels, or operating instructions.
By falsely advertising across multiple mediums that every shelter sold exceeds
FEMA 320 specifications, Defendants violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(27).
they passed the debris-impact resistance test. However,no evidence has beenpresented that any of
shelter designs sold, by Defendants has been tested there. As such, Defendants have
represented that their shelters have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, benefits, qualities,or uses that they do not have. 126. By falsely representing that their shelters have been teSted at WISE, Defendants
violated Ala.. Code §1J..19-S(27).
127. herein. 128. A.
The Attorney General adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1..126 as if fully alleged
The Attorney General prays for the following relief: A declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated one or more proVisions of Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices ,Act;
temporary injooctive relief as authorized by Alabama Code § 8-19-8 (1975); , pennanent injunctive relief as authorized by Alabama Code § 8~19~8(1975); penalties under Alabama Code § 8~19~11(1975); attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Alabama Code § 8-19 l1 (1975);
and other appropriate relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submittedthis
day of-l-tA~G~f'..!o.oId!2."_~_~; 2012.
LUTHER STRANGE (STR003) ATTORNEY GENERAL , 32
NOEL S. BARNES (BAR1S5) Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 (242"2433) fax
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 353-8440 (fax)
(334) 242~7300
CERTIFmO
, 'tornado Masters of Alabama, Inc. 7991 Highway 53 Toney, AL 35773 SafeSteel, Inc. 7965 Highway 53 Toney,AL,35773 For Leslie A. Holt & Gmdy Holt: Robert E. Long, Jr. Attorney at Law P.O. Box 135 Hartselle, AL 35640
More From This UserNRC Letter on Browns FerryMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitTva Oig ReportTva Oig ReportKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MotionJason Sharp Appeals Court RulingJason Sharp Appeal Court RulingJason Sharp Appeals Court RulingRoddy Lawsuit Dismissed
Tornado Masters Complaint by The Huntsville Times13K viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionComplaint filed against Tornado Masters of Alabama by the Alabama Attorney General alleging that the company defrauded customers and sold inferior storm shelters.Complaint filed against Tornado Masters of Alabama by the Alabama Attorney General alleging that the company defrauded customers and sold inferior storm shelters.Interests: Types, Government & PoliticsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedNRC Letter on Browns Ferryby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop Lawsuitby The Huntsville TimesTva Oig Reportby The Huntsville TimesTva Oig Reportby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Memoby The Huntsville TimesKarbhari Summary Judgment Motionby The Huntsville TimesJason Sharp Appeals Court Rulingby The Huntsville TimesJason Sharp Appeal Court Rulingby The Huntsville TimesJason Sharp Appeals Court Rulingby The Huntsville TimesRoddy Lawsuit Dismissedby The Huntsville TimesMike Carroll Plea Agreementby The Huntsville TimesEmail responses from UAH on Lasse Uusirvirta storyby The Huntsville TimesEmail responses from UAH on Lasse Uusirvirta storyby The Huntsville TimesMore from The Huntsville TimesNRC Letter on Browns FerryMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitMotion to Add David Williams to Bishop LawsuitTva Oig ReportTva Oig ReportKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MemoKarbhari Summary Judgment MotionJason Sharp Appeals Court RulingJason Sharp Appeal Court RulingJason Sharp Appeals Court RulingRoddy Lawsuit DismissedMike Carroll Plea AgreementEmail responses from UAH on Lasse Uusirvirta storyEmail responses from UAH on Lasse Uusirvirta storyUAH ResponsesEmail responses from UAH on Lasse Uusirvirta story.