When things go well, you pay for service and efficiency; when things go wrong, you learn that you…read moreactually bought lessons.
Based on how this situation has been handled, my experience suggests that when serious installation issues arise, management may rely strictly on contract technicalities rather than taking responsibility for the work. When documented technical findings and heavy mold contamination are presented, a company that stands by its work should address the facts head-on rather than avoiding accountability.
Keep in mind that major roofing flaws--like ventilation design failures, severe structural moisture, and heavy mold contamination--often take years to manifest. When that happens, you need a company led by people who take responsibility, not leaders who dismiss documented evidence.
The roof was installed before I purchased the home, but its premature failure within just 7 years has caused severe issues: 2026 ice damming, living room leaks, and heavy Cladosporium mold growth--a serious health risk for young children. A properly installed roof is generally expected to last decades, not fail within 7 years.
I want to be clear that my concern is with the installation and with how leadership has responded--not with the individual installation crew, who I do not believe are responsible for these decisions.
An independent inspection revealed a ventilation design conflict--a ridge vent paired with gable vents and limited intake--creating a "short-circuited" system that trapped attic moisture. This explains the lab-confirmed heavy Cladosporium growth on the sheathing ("Very Heavy" spores, "Many" mycelial estimate), which violates ARMA and TAMKO guidelines.
Instead of a brief update regarding their liability insurance review, the general manager submitted a lengthy, multi-page response on the BBB that which they later requested to be removed on 08/07/2026. I have fully screenshotted and backed up all records to preserve an accurate account of the facts, which fellow homeowners can review below.
Management even refuse to address the facts head-on, a phone call is just for show--leaving these fundamental questions unanswered:
1. Permit compliance -- Was the work performed under the required municipal permits at the time?
2. Code applicability to older homes --What standard exempts older, existing homes from proper installation practices?
3. Ventilation design -- Given that no intake vent was installed and unsealed gable vents were already present, what was the reasoning for adding a ridge vent, creating an unbalanced system?
4.Flashing and fasteners -- My concern is specifically about exposed, unsealed fastener holes from reused flashing, not whether pan flashing itself should be visible. How does reusing flashing without resealing align with proper water-intrusion prevention?
5. Liability basis -- Separate from contractual technicalities, what is a contractor's responsibility for non-compliant work, especially since liability insurance opened a claim?
Liability insurance already opened a claim based on credible evidence--not mere persistence. Leadership should address these technical findings instead of hiding behind contract technicalities. Even if a direct contract existed, they would just claim they followed it. But the truth is, the contract itself was built on a flawed design.
A long-standing reputation should be built on accountability, not on contract technicalities. In my view, a truly reputable company is best served by addressing documented facts head-on rather than focusing on the absence of a direct contract.
For homeowners considering this or any contractor: request their Certificate of Liability Insurance, and verify licensing and permit history with your local building department. If you encounter a dispute, the Erie County Department of Public Advocacy or the NY State Attorney General's office are available resources.
