Representative Image (AI-generated)
In Indiana, a couple who hired a contractor to repair a house and garage secured an $82,020 judgment against his construction company after a court found that it had breached the contract and made material and fraudulent misrepresentations. On October 26, 2026, an appeals court ruled that the contractor himself could also be held personally liable. Jeremy Swenson, et al., available on Justia , the contractor had accepted cheques and a Ford F-350 truck as part of the arrangement, but the promised manufactured roof trusses were never supplied as agreed. In June 2023, the couple terminated the contract and demanded repayment of $17,000 paid for materials that had not been ordered, along with $10,000 for damage caused by faulty workmanship. He also could definitively identify only about $500 in receipts as relating to the Burgners’ project. In July 2025, the trial court found that SwenCrest had breached the contract and made material and fraudulent misrepresentations. After trebling the damages, the court entered judgment against SwenCrest, Inc., for $82,020.08, plus costs.
Et al. v, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision in Robert Burgner. A home renovation project can turn into a costly dispute when promised materials never arrive and the work fails to meet the contract. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s refusal to impose personal liability on Jeremy Swenson, concluding that he could not use his company as a shield against responsibility for fraudulent conduct in which he had personally participated. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against Swenson, his wife and the construction business, alleging breach of contract, fraud and other claims. During the proceedings, evidence raised questions about the company’s financial records and its handling of funds. Swenson acknowledged that some personal expenses had appeared in the company’s bank account. It awarded the couple damages, including amounts they had paid, costs for repairs and further work by another contractor, estimated future repair costs, attorney’s fees and filing fees. However, it declined to hold Swenson personally liable, finding that the circumstances did not justify piercing the corporate veil. The couple challenged that part of the decision. The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that Swenson could be held personally liable for his own participation in the fraudulent conduct, even without piercing the corporate veil. The judges explained that corporate officers and members of limited liability companies are generally protected from responsibility for business debts. However, that protection does not prevent them from being held personally liable for wrongful conduct in which they directly participate.