Belfor USA Group, the disaster restoration company headquartered in Birmingham, Michigan, has been the target of a range of lawsuits over the past two decades. The Belfor Restoration lawsuits on public record fall into five recurring categories: consumer overcharging claims tied to equipment rentals, wage-and-hour cases brought by hourly workers, breach-of-contract disputes with homeowners, federal workplace safety citations, and, most recently, an employment discrimination case filed in Oregon in 2025.1Belfor. About Belfor
Equipment Rental Overcharging Class Action
In May 2021, Hatcher Investments, the owner of a commercial building in Liberty, Missouri, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging Belfor systematically overcharged customers for restoration equipment rentals. According to the complaint, Belfor billed clients “up to three to four times” what the company actually paid for the equipment.2Top Class Actions. Belfor Property Restoration Overcharging Customers Equipment Class Action Lawsuit
The specific example in the pleadings: Belfor rented interior shoring equipment for $3,125 per month but billed Hatcher Investments $9,500 per month for the same equipment, then added a 20 percent “profit and overhead” fee on top, bringing the monthly total to $11,400. Hatcher said it only learned of the markup through testimony in a separate 2018 insurance-related lawsuit after Belfor had refused to produce invoices showing its actual costs.3ClassAction.org. Class Action Alleges Belfor Property Restoration Significantly Overcharges Customers for Equipment Rentals
The suit asserts breach of contract, breach of fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent nondisclosure, and seeks to represent a nationwide class of everyone Belfor invoiced for equipment rentals on or after May 3, 2016, plus a Missouri subclass.4ClassAction.org. Hatcher Investments LLC v. Belfor USA Group Inc. et al. (Complaint) No public resolution has been reported.
Wage-and-Hour Cases
Belfor’s largest recent labor settlement came in Rodriguez v. Belfor USA Group. The case, filed in March 2022 by Capstone Law APC on behalf of non-exempt hourly workers at Belfor and affiliated entities including Belfor Environmental, Oakwood Construction and Restoration Services, and 1-800 Water Damage North America, alleged failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages for off-the-clock work, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act violations.5BelforLawsuit.com. Rodriguez v. Belfor USA Group Inc. et al.
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of more than $1.6 million covering more than 600 former employees across a California state class and a national FLSA collective.6Bloomberg Law. Belfor Property Restoration to Pay $1.6 Million to 600 Workers
An earlier collective action, Rodrigues v. Belfor USA Group, was brought by workers who performed post-Hurricane Katrina restoration at Tulane Hospital and Tulane University. The workers, represented in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleged Belfor used a subcontractor arrangement to avoid overtime pay even as employees worked 12-hour days, seven days a week, removing toxic contaminants. Belfor settled without admitting wrongdoing, agreeing to pay all unpaid overtime plus penalties, certify the collective action with a one-year opt-in window, and change its practices on future projects to comply with the FLSA.7SPLC. Rodrigues et al. v. Belfor USA Group Inc.
Homeowner Breach-of-Contract Rulings
The strongest published ruling against Belfor came out of Colorado. Alan and Anna Morris hired Belfor to inventory, clean, and restore personal property after an April 2003 house fire. The trial court called Belfor’s performance “abysmal,” “egregious,” and “shoddy,” finding the company failed to return numerous items, improperly cleaned what it did return, and lacked basic inventory documentation.8FindLaw. Morris v. Belfor USA Group Inc.
When the Morrises refused to pay a final $20,113 invoice, Belfor contacted their bank and misrepresented the status of prior payments, causing the bank to freeze the account. After a 2007 bench trial the court concluded the value of Belfor’s work was “essentially zero” and ordered a full refund of $83,708.24, representing all prior insurance payments the couple had made to the company. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the damages calculation in December 2008.9vLex. Morris v. Belfor USA Group Inc., 201 P.3d 1253
A separate Washington case, Pinney v. Belfor USA Group, went the other way on procedural grounds. Merle and Amanda Pinney hired Belfor to clean smoke-damaged property and alleged the company failed to deliver on a guarantee that their clothing would be returned “neutral and fresh.” They first sued their insurer, American Family Insurance, on an agency theory and settled that case with prejudice. When they later sued Belfor directly over the same guarantee, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal in October 2014 on res judicata grounds, holding that having already recovered from the principal, they could not bring a second action against the agent for the same injuries.10Washington Courts. Pinney v. Belfor USA Group Inc. et al.
OSHA Workplace Safety Citations
Federal safety regulators have cited Belfor multiple times. In May 2019, OSHA cited Belfor Property Restoration for three serious asbestos-related violations during rehabilitation work at Kansas State University’s Hale Library, finding the company failed to inform the building owner and other employees about the location and quantity of presumed asbestos-containing material. Proposed penalties totaled $39,780.11U.S. Department of Labor. OSHA News Release
A 2020 citation at a Deerfield Beach, Florida, warehouse addressed a nine-foot fall hazard: an employee was being elevated on the forks of a powered industrial truck. The initial penalty was $11,566.12OSHA. OSHA Violation Detail – Inspection 1438966 In February 2024, OSHA cited Belfor for a fall-protection violation at a residential demolition site in Aurora, Colorado, where workers faced an eight-foot fall hazard without guardrails or safety equipment. That citation, initially set at $16,131, was reduced to $10,000 through an informal settlement.13OSHA. OSHA Violation Detail – Inspection 1704168
Pending Employment Discrimination Case
The most recent case on the public docket is Bliss v. Belfor USA Group, an employment discrimination action filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon and removed by Belfor to federal court in April 2025. As of early 2026 the case is in discovery before Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, with a five-day jury trial scheduled to begin April 19, 2027. Specific allegations were not available in the public docket entries reviewed.14PACER Monitor. Bliss v. Belfor USA Group Inc.
9/11 Toxic Exposure Litigation
Following the September 11 attacks, more than 100 plaintiffs sued Belfor over exposure to toxic pollutants at the World Trade Center site. According to Forbes, Belfor paid $1.5 million in legal fees on those claims, which were eventually addressed through federal victim compensation legislation enacted in 2011 and 2015.15Forbes. How One CEO Went From Working Alongside Mob Figures to Running a $1.5B Business