An Advocate Construction lawsuit search turns up three distinct court cases and a substantial trail of consumer complaints. The Glendale Heights, Illinois roofing and restoration contractor is currently defending a federal employment discrimination suit in Texas, and it has itself filed two contract-related cases: one against former workers over restrictive covenants, and one against a Wisconsin homeowner over an unpaid invoice. Alongside the litigation, the company has accumulated 44 Better Business Bureau complaints in three years, clustered around workmanship failures, disputed cancellation fees, and allegations tied to insurance deductibles.
Thakur v. Advocate Construction: The Federal Discrimination Case
In August 2025, Marilyn Thakur filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Advocate Construction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Brantley Starr and brought under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging civil rights violations in the employment context.1PACER Monitor. Thakur v Advocate Construction Inc
Thakur is represented by R. Rogge Dunn and Bryan C. Collins of the Rogge Dunn Group. Advocate is represented by Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP. The publicly available docket does not disclose the specific factual allegations. As of mid-2026, the case sits in the discovery and pretrial phase, with fact discovery due by August 2026, a mediation deadline of November 1, 2026, and a jury trial scheduled for April 5, 2027.1PACER Monitor. Thakur v Advocate Construction Inc
Advocate Construction v. Scurlock: Restrictive Covenants and Breach of Contract
In June 2024, Advocate Construction filed suit in the 298th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Michael Scurlock, Ralph Felix, and GNU Construction LLC. The complaint alleges multiple breaches of contract tied to employment and restrictive covenants, and seeks between $250,000 and $1,000,000 in damages along with injunctive relief.2Trellis Law. Advocate Construction Inc vs Michael Scurlock et al
Early proceedings produced an agreed temporary injunction and a Rule 11 agreement between the parties. A jury trial notice was filed in June 2025, and the case remains open.3Trellis Law. Original Petition – Temporary Injunction
Advocate Construction v. Oliver: A Wisconsin Homeowner Dispute
In July 2021, Advocate Construction sued homeowner Marie Oliver in Racine County Circuit Court in Wisconsin. Court records describe the dispute as involving an Advocate Construction agreement and invoice, with Oliver raising affirmative defenses. Advocate filed a first amended complaint in October 2021. The case was listed as pending with its most recent court activity in early 2022.4UniCourt. Advocate Construction Inc vs Marie Oliver
Consumer Complaints Against Advocate Construction
Advocate Construction holds an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau but has accumulated 44 complaints over a three-year period as of mid-2026, 13 of them closed in the most recent twelve months.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints The allegations fall into three groups.
Workmanship and Project Delays
The largest category, 31 of 44 complaints, involves service or repair issues. Homeowners have reported leaking roofs, improperly installed flashing and siding, and failure to complete work on schedule. A March 2026 complaint described a $22,000 roof installation that produced leaks, ice accumulation, and damaged siding. A December 2025 complaint alleged that restoration work following a 2023 weather event remained incomplete for nearly two years, and that Advocate repeatedly tried to mark the project as “completed” when it was not.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints
Cancellation Fees and Liquidated Damages
Eight complaints involve order or cancellation disputes, most focused on Advocate’s use of liquidated damages clauses. Several homeowners said that when they tried to cancel before any labor or materials had been delivered, the company threatened to collect liquidated damages. One December 2025 complainant called this an “unfair and deceptive attempt to collect money for work that was never performed.” Another homeowner said they accepted what was offered as a “free roof estimate” and were later told they had to “honor the binding contract” after choosing a different contractor.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints
Advocate has responded that it is entitled to compensation for administrative and insurance-coordination services already performed under the signed contract.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints
Insurance Deductible Allegations
A January 2026 complaint raised a more serious accusation. The homeowner alleged that Advocate representatives “repeatedly represented” the homeowner’s insurance deductible would be “offset” or covered as part of the company’s work, and noted that waiving or absorbing an insurance deductible can constitute insurance fraud under state law. The complainant described “persistent and heavy solicitation” to sign an amended contract.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints
Advocate has denied these allegations in its BBB responses. The company says it does not waive, absorb, or rebate insurance deductibles and that it follows all applicable insurance regulations. It has attributed project delays to severe weather events and industry-wide resource constraints.5BBB. Advocate Construction Inc Complaints
Why the Deductible and Cancellation Rules Matter
The complaint categories track directly to state consumer protection laws in the markets where Advocate operates. In Illinois, where the company is headquartered, the Home Repair and Remodeling Act requires residential roofing contractors to register with the state for any work exceeding $1,000. Illinois law prohibits contractors from offering to pay any portion of a customer’s insurance deductible as a sales inducement, and bars them from representing insured homeowners in dealings with insurers or filing claims on the homeowner’s behalf. Consumers have the right to cancel insurance-related home repair contracts within specified time frames, and contractors must provide written cancellation notices and return payments within ten business days of a valid cancellation.6Illinois Contractor Authority. Illinois Roofing Contractor Requirements
Texas, where both the Thakur and Scurlock cases were filed, also prohibits contractors from waiving or rebating insurance deductibles. Colorado requires written contracts for residential roofing work over $1,000 and prohibits contractors from acting as public adjusters unless separately licensed. Kansas requires all roofing contractors, including out-of-state operators, to register with the Attorney General’s office before soliciting or performing work.7Construction Dive. Catching Storm Chasers: How Roofing Oversight Rules Are Reshaping the Industry Kansas Attorney General enforcement against unregistered roofers has been active following storm activity, and consumer warnings about out-of-state operators have issued in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.8HomePros News. Storm Surge Triggers Crackdown on Unregistered Roofing Contractors
What Advocate Cites in Its Defense
On its FAQ page, Advocate Construction cites State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Radcliff as support for its position in disputes with insurance companies.9Advocate Construction. FAQs The Indiana Court of Appeals case, decided in 2013, involved a repair contractor named Joseph Radcliff who helped homeowners dispute claim denials after a 2006 hailstorm. State Farm investigated Radcliff for insurance fraud, and he was arrested on fourteen felony charges, all later dismissed. State Farm then sued Radcliff for fraud and racketeering; Radcliff counterclaimed for defamation and won a $14.5 million jury verdict, one of the largest defamation awards in U.S. history at the time.10The Indiana Lawyer. State Farm Must Pay Contractor $14.5M for Defamation
The appellate court affirmed, holding that insurers do not have categorical immunity when accusing contractors of fraud, and that malicious or unfounded accusations can support defamation liability.11Past Paper Hero. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Radcliff, 987 N.E.2d 121 Advocate’s reliance on the case reflects its position that restoration contractors who advocate aggressively for policyholders are sometimes unfairly targeted by insurers.