Anthony and Sylvan lawsuits span consumer protection, contract fairness, personal injury, and inherited corporate liability. The pool builder, in business since 1946 and licensed across more than a dozen states, has paid a six-figure settlement to New Jersey regulators, had a one-sided arbitration clause struck down by a New Jersey appellate court in 2025, won a Nevada Supreme Court ruling that blocked an injury claim on statute-of-repose grounds, and litigated with a former corporate partner over who pays for asbestos claims. Here is what each of those disputes involved and what the courts or regulators decided.
New Jersey Consumer Protection Settlement
In March 2010, Anthony & Sylvan Pools agreed to pay $180,000 to resolve an investigation by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General and the Division of Consumer Affairs. The Division had logged 56 pool-contractor complaints in 2008 and 30 in 2009, and roughly 40 filed specifically against Anthony & Sylvan were resolved as part of the settlement.1NJ Office of the Attorney General. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Agrees to Pay $180,000 Under Settlement With the State
The company did not admit liability under the Consumer Fraud Act, the Contractors’ Registration Act, or related regulations. The consent order, however, reshaped how the company does business in the state. Anthony & Sylvan agreed to make sure any subcontractor working on its home improvement projects is registered with the Division of Consumer Affairs, as state law requires.2NJ Office of the Attorney General. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Settlement Press Release
The order also imposed several business practice reforms:
- The company cannot require consumers to make final payment before a home improvement project is complete.
- Contracts must include specific start and completion dates or time periods, along with all applicable warranties and guarantees.
- Consumers must receive timely written notice of performance delays outside the company’s control.
- Sales and service staff must be trained so that claims about products and materials are accurate.
- For one year following the settlement, unresolved consumer complaints filed with the Division would be referred to binding arbitration.
Deputy Attorney General Frank J. Marasco of the Consumer Fraud Prosecution Section represented the state.3Press of Atlantic City. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Settlement
Lahoud v. Anthony & Sylvan Corp. — Arbitration Clause Struck Down
In February 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided Lahoud v. Anthony & Sylvan Corp., a ruling that changes what parts of the company’s standard contract a homeowner can be forced to accept.4NJ Courts. Lahoud v. Anthony & Sylvan Corp., No. A-3049-23
The Underlying Dispute
John Lahoud signed a $114,788 contract with Anthony & Sylvan in January 2023 for an in-ground pool at a property in Mantoloking, New Jersey, and paid roughly $50,000 as a deposit. The job went badly, according to his complaint. He alleged significant construction delays, the assignment of an inexperienced subcontractor, and a failed excavation attempt. He also claimed the company falsely told him that $14,000 in “helical pilings” were necessary.
Lahoud terminated the contract in October 2023, declaring a material breach. Anthony & Sylvan offered a $27,890 refund while asserting the homeowner still owed $15,617 for excavation work and $4,493 for permits. Lahoud filed suit in February 2024 in Bergen County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and seeking a ruling on whether the mandatory arbitration clause was enforceable.
What the Court Decided
The contract required non-binding mediation followed by binding arbitration under American Arbitration Association rules. It also contained a “reservation of rights” clause, printed in capital letters, that let Anthony & Sylvan bypass arbitration and sue in court to collect money owed by the customer. The customer had no equivalent right.
The trial court initially sided with the company, compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed on the reservation of rights clause, calling it “grossly unbalanced” and “unconscionable” for lacking mutuality: the company preserved its own access to the courts while denying the same to the homeowner, meaning that if Anthony & Sylvan sued in court, Lahoud could not assert counterclaims or defenses there.
The court did not throw out the entire arbitration agreement. Because the contract included a severability clause, the judges struck the one-sided provision and left the rest of the dispute-resolution process standing. The court also held that the trial judge should have stayed the lawsuit under the Federal Arbitration Act rather than dismissing it, and sent the case back with instructions to reinstate the complaint and pause litigation while mediation and arbitration proceed.
The court rejected Lahoud’s argument that the whole contract was one of adhesion, noting he had the opportunity to consult a lawyer and a three-day right to cancel.
Donnelly v. Anthony & Sylvan Pools — Nevada’s Statute of Repose
A December 2018 ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court in Donnelly v. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Corporation addressed how long after a pool is built someone can sue the builder for a construction defect.5FindLaw. Donnelly v. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Corporation
Christopher Donnelly dove into a residential in-ground pool on August 2, 2014, and struck his head on a submerged built-in cement bench. Anthony & Sylvan had built the pool, which was substantially completed on October 20, 2004. Donnelly filed suit on June 21, 2016, alleging the company had failed to adequately design, install, build, maintain, and inspect the pool.
The company moved to dismiss under Nevada’s statute of repose for construction defects. A statute of repose differs from a statute of limitations: it sets an absolute outer deadline tied to when construction was completed, regardless of when someone is injured. Donnelly argued the statute was ambiguous, did not apply to non-homeowners, and violated his constitutional rights to court access, jury trial, and equal protection.
The Nevada Supreme Court rejected each argument and affirmed dismissal. The statute, the court ruled, is unambiguous and imposes a firm cutoff for construction-defect liability. Because the accident occurred nearly ten years after the pool was finished, the claim was time-barred under any version of the statute. The court added that legislative limits on common-law causes of action do not automatically violate access-to-court guarantees, and that the statute satisfied rational-basis review for equal protection purposes.
Asbestos Indemnification Case
An April 2020 Ninth Circuit decision involved not pool construction but liabilities Anthony & Sylvan inherited through a corporate transaction. Under an Asset Purchase Agreement between Anthony & Sylvan Pools Corporation and Outdoor Sports Gear, Inc. (OSG), the two companies had divided responsibility for liabilities tied to the transferred business.6FindLaw. Anthony & Sylvan Pools Corp. v. Outdoor Sports Gear Inc.
The question was who paid for three underlying asbestos personal injury lawsuits. OSG retained liabilities arising before closing; Anthony & Sylvan assumed those arising afterward. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that OSG was liable for the personal injury damages in the three cases because the asbestos exposures occurred before closing. It reversed the lower court on one point: wrongful death and loss of consortium claims that arose after closing were treated as separate injuries, making Anthony & Sylvan responsible for those. The court also ruled Anthony & Sylvan was not required to maintain asbestos-related insurance coverage under the agreement, and denied both sides’ requests for attorney’s fees.
Consumer Complaints Outside the Courtroom
Not every dispute has become a lawsuit. A homeowner who contracted with Anthony & Sylvan in 2018 for a project exceeding $200,000 launched a website, OurPoolSucks.com, documenting complaints about a leaking pool, a streaked and stained bottom, improperly set travertine deck tiles, and damage to the yard and driveway. The homeowner wrote that resolving one issue required six visits by five different managers over six months.7OurPoolSucks.com. My Anthony & Sylvan Pools Complaint
In June 2019, the site’s author reported communications from Anthony & Sylvan that stopped short of formal legal threats but implied potential action over the online posts. One email stated: “We would prefer to continue negotiations with you, but are prepared to take all necessary actions to remove the online content you have posted that continues to devastate our brand.” No formal cease-and-desist letter or lawsuit had been filed as of that date. The homeowner retained a lawyer and said the site would come down only as part of a negotiated settlement.8OurPoolSucks.com. Anthony Sylvan Pools Implies Legal Jeopardy Around This Issue