A home renovation project can turn into a costly dispute when promised materials never arrive and the work fails to meet the contract. 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.According to the Indiana Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision in Robert Burgner, et al. v. 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. 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.
Couple hired contractor for house and garage repairs
The dispute began in early 2022, when Robert Burgner contacted Swenson about repairs and improvements to a property on Harrison Street in Veedersburg, Indiana. The property included a house and a garage that had been unoccupied for several years. Swenson operated a construction business called SwenCrest, LLC, of which he was the sole member. He prepared a written estimate on the company’s letterhead, outlining the planned work and estimated material costs. The contract, signed in April 2022, quoted a total of $25,286.75, with labour costs listed as zero. The parties agreed that Burgner would transfer ownership of a 2005 Ford F-350 truck as payment for the work.The agreement specified the use of manufactured roof trusses. The couple also made additional payments by cheque to cover materials, including $9,000 in April 2022 and $6,000 in July that year. The money was intended to pay for trusses and other construction materials, including roofing supplies.
Manufactured roof trusses were never delivered
By July 2022, Burgner discovered that the roof trusses had not been ordered. He and Swenson subsequently visited Ferguson Lumber, where Swenson placed an order for the materials, which were expected to arrive in November. However, the lumber supplier later cancelled the order. According to an employee of Ferguson Lumber, the cancellation occurred because Swenson had an unpaid account with the supplier.In September 2022, Swenson took possession of the Ford F-350, and Burgner transferred the vehicle’s title documents, assigning the truck to SwenCrest, LLC. The following month, the couple issued another cheque for $2,023.36 at Swenson’s direction, making it payable to him personally. Swenson later acknowledged that he deposited the cheque electronically and then cashed it at the couple’s bank. He repaid the amount about 30 days after Burgner raised the issue.In November, Burgner visited Swenson’s home to investigate the missing trusses. There, he discovered trusses being constructed in the contractor’s backyard for the couple’s project. Burgner rejected them because the contract specified manufactured trusses rather than the ones being made on-site. The couple also encountered delays in the remaining work. Swenson claimed that he had obtained a building permit, but records from the Town of Veedersburg showed that neither he nor his company had applied for one for the property.
Construction company ordered to pay more than $82,000
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. 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. 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. 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.After trebling the damages, the court entered judgment against SwenCrest, Inc., for $82,020.08, plus costs. 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.
Appeals court says contractor can be held personally liable
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.The court noted that Swenson was the sole member of the LLC and the person who dealt with the couple throughout the transaction. He accepted their payments, failed to purchase materials as promised, did not disclose the cancellation of the truss order and attempted to construct the trusses himself despite the contract’s specifications. The court therefore reversed the decision refusing to hold Swenson personally liable and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment against both Swenson and SwenCrest, Inc.The ruling does not mean that business owners are automatically responsible for every company debt. Instead, it reinforces the distinction between liability arising from a company’s obligations and liability arising from an individual’s own fraudulent conduct. The October 26 decision was issued as a memorandum decision and is not binding precedent under Indiana Appellate Rule 65(D), although it may be cited for persuasive value.