Indiana Prosecutors Say Company Damaged Roof in Hail Scam

September 22, 2008

  • April 2, 2009 at 1:12 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All charges are dismissed against Joseph Radcliff with CPM Construction. These charges came as a result of a Hail storm that hit the Indianapolis area April 14, 2006. CPM was charged with insurance fraud related with STATE FARM insurance claims. The Marion County attorneys office has dismissed all charges against Joseph Radcliff. CPM fights for homeowners rights against insurance companies who do not payout insurance claims properly. In Indiana alone state farm has denied thousands of claims saying that there is no hail damage to the roofs. there are thousands of homeowners that look down there streets and see every house on there street with new roofs but there’s. State farm magically puts protective bubbles over there clients to protect them from storm damages while the rest of the community is un protected. CPM has stood up to help our neighbors and said this will not stand. They have worked closely with the Department of Insurance in confronting this issue. State Farm put together a well planned story of charges and presented it to a detective that like to have his job done for him rather than doing his job and investigating it. The prosecuting office say the truth in Joseph Radcliff and stated they had a moral obligation to dismiss the charges when the state can not find true evidence against him.
    Please see this link for the story:

    CPM looks forward to the future and rebuilding the owners name and the company name after this attack against them. We will continue to fight for our clients rights and improving this industry.

  • June 8, 2010 at 1:32 am
    An Actuary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why is this article from September 22, 2008 showing up in the “Most Popular Articles: This Week” now?

  • June 8, 2010 at 2:00 am
    Anony Mouse says:
  • June 9, 2010 at 3:31 am
    It's Me says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s pretty difficult to lend any credibility to the “rebuttal” article when there are SO many spelling and grammatical errors within it.

    I’m as perplexed as you are about why this is “most popular” since the original article was from 2008 and Joe’s posting was 2009?

  • June 14, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    Muggyfrost says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is from Angies List published 6/1/09

    by Joshua Palmer

    Fourteen felony charges have been dismissed against a construction contractor featured in Angie’s List Magazine’s
    January roundup of worst contractors in Indianapolis.

    In lieu of the charges, CPM Construction of Indiana owner Joseph Radcliff agreed the prosecutor had probable cause to pursue one count of misdemeanor criminal mischief as part of an April 1 agreement with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. Radcliff was arrested in September 2008 on charges stemming from National Insurance Crime Bureau allegations that Radcliff’s company intentionally damaged homeowners’ roofs to inflate insurance claims in the wake of hailstorms.

    “Unfortunately, we do not have enough to go forward on the case,” says Marion County Prosecutor spokesman Mario Massillamany. Homeowners and a former employee were no longer willing to testify or had changed their initial statements and without them, the case had no legs, Massillamany says. “But just because we dismiss a case doesn’t mean the individual is innocent,” he says.

    Jennifer Lukemeyer, Radcliff’s defense attorney, says her client was committed to beating the case because the facts didn’t support the charges. “This was the easiest resolution that guaranteed the dismissal of the charges,” Lukemeyer says. “He didn’t admit to the commission of any offense or any action that could constitute a criminal offense.”

    As part of the agreement, Radcliff paid $660 in fines and court costs. Admitting the state had probable cause doesn’t imply guilt but rather that the state had enough information to pursue the charge, Massillamany says. He emphasized the agreement is contingent on Radcliff committing no criminal offenses for two years. If he were to run afoul of the law within that time, the prosecutor could reinstate the charges. “I doubt these charges would ever be resurrected,” Lukemeyer says. “That’s a standard term in every diversion agreement.”

    Between 2007 and 2008, Angie’s List members’ negative reports described the company attempting to enforce unclear contract terms and delayed storm damage repair work – though no reports mentioned claims of intentional damage to their homes.

    Also in April, the Indiana attorney general closed a civil complaint it filed against CPM and Radcliff in December. The complaint alleged CPM represented to homeowners that when they signed paperwork, it only authorized an estimate. However, the complaint states, when homeowners chose not to hire CPM, the company attempted to enforce the paperwork as a contract that entitled it to 20 percent of the contract’s value.

    In May 2007, Daviline Arnold, one of four homeowners named in the complaint, says CPM performed an estimate on her home’s roofing and siding hail damage. She says they asked her to sign paperwork stating she approved the company contacting her insurance company. “They said ‘It’s not a contract,’ so I went ahead and signed it,” Arnold told Angie’s List Magazine. “Come to find out the other side was a contract that I unknowingly signed. It said that if I backed out, I agreed to pay them 20 percent of the job.”

    CPM business attorney Mark McKinzie says that prior to the complaint, the company had already changed its practices to include explaining the agreement’s terms to customers and providing separate cancellation forms. To resolve the complaint, CPM and Radcliff agreed to comply with Indiana’s home improvement contract laws and released homeowners from the contracts. Arnold says she remains wary. “There’s that old saying that a leopard cannot change its spots,” she says.

  • June 25, 2010 at 3:58 am
    Larry says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What I find disturbing is no one other than Joe, whom I assume is the Joe in the article, manned up and put his name on his post. Bunch of back stabbing pansies if you ask me. You should get work on the merits of your company, not on scaring people away from someone else’s company.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *