Everdry Waterproofing Lawsuits and Consumer Complaints

Everdry Waterproofing has been sued and investigated repeatedly since the late 1990s, including a federal sexual harassment verdict against the company, an Indiana attorney general investigation into its lifetime warranty practices, a Wisconsin consumer misrepresentation judgment, and a multi-plaintiff wage case in New York. Alongside those lawsuits against Everdry Waterproofing, franchise locations continue to draw complaints to the Better Business Bureau and state regulators over persistent water intrusion, warranty denials, and high-pressure sales.¹

The EEOC Sexual Harassment Verdict

The biggest judgment against Everdry came out of a federal case the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed in 2001. The agency charged that male managers and salesmen at Everdry’s Rochester, New York, location had subjected 13 female employees, most of them teenage telemarketers, to a sexually hostile work environment starting in 1998. The EEOC described the victims as “especially vulnerable.”²

The allegations included repeated groping, sexual jokes, constant commentary about female employees’ bodies, and repeated demands for sex. In one incident, a manager coerced a 16-year-old employee into a lewd act in front of coworkers. Another manager offered a teenage worker a raise in exchange for sexual acts. The EEOC alleged that local and national management failed to stop the conduct, and that some victims were constructively discharged.²

On October 27, 2006, a federal jury in Rochester returned a verdict for the EEOC and awarded $585,000: $325,000 in compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional suffering, and $260,000 in punitive damages. The jury also found that the Rochester franchise and the corporate office operated as an “integrated enterprise,” which made Everdry liable under Title VII even though the Rochester location was nominally a separate affiliate.³

The Second Circuit affirmed the verdict and punitive damages on appeal. The award was ultimately reduced to $471,096, and Everdry’s corporate headquarters paid that sum plus $86,581 in post-judgment interest. Individual payouts to the 13 victims ranged from roughly $24,000 to $56,000. The EEOC announced on May 5, 2010, that the judgment had been satisfied in full.³

The Indiana Attorney General Investigation

In 2005, the Indiana Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division began receiving complaints from homeowners who said Everdry was not honoring the “lifetime warranties” on its waterproofing systems. The office opened an investigation into whether the company had violated Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act by misrepresenting what those warranties covered.⁴

The Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand on March 10, 2006. Everdry resisted, and the state filed a petition in Marion Superior Court to enforce it. The investigation also revealed that Everdry had failed to file a required Uniform Franchise Registration Application with the Indiana Secretary of State, which the company did not remedy until June 7, 2006.⁵

Everdry appealed the enforcement order, arguing that Indiana courts had no personal jurisdiction over an Ohio corporation. In Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc. v. Carter, decided April 14, 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected that argument. The court pointed to Everdry’s active recruitment of Indiana franchisees, its collection of fees and royalties in the state, and its direct contact with Indiana consumers, and held that the company had consented to Indiana’s jurisdiction when it filed its franchise registration.⁴

The Ording Consumer Misrepresentation Case in Wisconsin

A consumer lawsuit out of Milwaukee shows what a homeowner win against Everdry looks like. In July 2008, an Everdry salesman told Michael and Cheryl Ording that if they signed a contract with the company, they would “never have water in their basement again.” Two years later, in July 2010, their basement flooded with five feet of water.⁶

The Ordings sued in August 2011 for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligent waterproofing, and violation of the Wisconsin Home Improvement Practices Act. The jury rejected the contract, warranty, and negligence claims but found that Everdry had violated the Home Improvement Practices Act through misrepresentation. The jury awarded $7,000, and the trial court doubled that to $14,000 under a Wisconsin statute authorizing doubled damages for violations of administrative consumer-protection orders. In April 2015, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability, refusing to let Everdry rely on an integration clause it had raised only after the verdict.⁶

New York Unpaid Wages Lawsuit

In March 2020, 23 workers filed a multi-plaintiff lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, Monroe County, against J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Everdry Waterproofing of Upstate New York. The case, Clinton Ball, et al. v. J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., alleged unpaid wages and was classified as a commercial matter.⁷

What Customers Keep Complaining About

Formal lawsuits are only part of the picture. The BBB profile for Everdry’s Columbus, Ohio, location shows 49 complaints over the most recent three-year period.⁸ The Toledo, Ohio, location had 27 complaints over three years as of mid-2026.⁹ The same themes come up across states.

Persistent water and mold problems after installation. In one Ohio case reported by NBC4 Columbus, a homeowner who paid over $11,000 in 2013 was still fighting mold issues a decade later and had her dispute headed to arbitration as of early 2023.¹⁰
Salespeople verbally promising services, such as foundation excavation or mold treatment, that never appear in the written contract. Some customers describe this as a “bait and switch.”⁹
High-pressure tactics, including demands for same-day signatures, expiring discounts, in-person manager visits required to process cancellations, and scare talk about imminent structural failure.¹¹
Property damage during installation, including broken water pipes, damaged cable lines, cracked patio blocks, and stained siding.¹²
Warranty pushback. Homeowners report that Everdry attributes ongoing leaks to “record rainstorms” or homeowner modifications, and some complain of an undisclosed $145 annual warranty maintenance fee.¹¹

In responses to BBB complaints, the company typically states that it “stands behind our product and warranty” and attributes delays to worksite conditions, weather, or inspections. At least one recent complaint, filed in September 2025, was routed through the Ohio Attorney General’s office and alleged gross misrepresentation and pressure tactics.⁹

Why the Franchise Structure Matters When You Sue

Everdry, formally Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc., is headquartered in Macedonia, Ohio, and each franchise is independently owned under its own legal name. The Wisconsin location is incorporated as Wisconsin State Home Services, Inc., and the Rochester, New York, location has operated as J.M. Romich Enterprises.¹³⁷ If you sue, the local franchise entity, not the name on the truck, is usually the defendant.

That structure has not always kept the corporate parent out of the case. In the EEOC lawsuit, the jury found that the Rochester franchise and the corporate entities formed “one integrated business enterprise,” and corporate headquarters paid the judgment.³ In the Indiana investigation, the court found that corporate Everdry’s control over its franchisees was enough to establish jurisdiction.⁴ According to franchise analysis data, Everdry’s Franchise Disclosure Document does not disclose lawsuits or bankruptcy information.¹

What You Can Do If You Have a Dispute

If you signed a contract at your home, federal law gives you a three-day cooling-off period to cancel for any reason.¹⁴ Several Everdry franchises reference that window in their BBB responses and have told customers who cancel later that they owe a cancellation fee of up to 28%.¹¹

Beyond the cancellation window, most states have consumer protection statutes that let homeowners recover damages for deceptive home improvement practices, and some authorize enhanced damages. New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act mandates treble damages when a consumer proves a causal link between a contractor’s violation and the loss.¹⁵ Wisconsin’s statute is what produced the doubled award in the Ording case.⁶

You can also file a complaint with your state attorney general’s office or pursue the matter in small claims court. Read your contract closely first. Some Everdry contracts contain arbitration clauses that route disputes out of court and into private arbitration.¹⁰

1
VettedBiz. Everdry Waterproofing Franchise
2
EEOC. Everdry Waterproofing to Pay $585,000; Teen Harassment Jury Returns Verdict in EEOC Sex Bias Suit
3
EEOC. EEOC Collects $471,000 Jury Award After Winning Appeal; Waterproofing Company Sex Harassment
4
Findlaw. Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc. v. Carter
5
Justia. Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc. v. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana
6
Wisconsin Courts. Ording v. Wisconsin State Home Services, Inc. d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing
7
Trellis Law. Clinton Ball, et al. v. J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc.
8
BBB. EverDry Waterproofing of Columbus Complaints
9
BBB. EverDry Waterproofing Complaints
10
WCMH NBC4i. Homeowners Press Waterproofing Company to Fix Shoddy Work, Mold Problems
11
BBB. EverDry Waterproofing of Michiana Complaints
12
BBB. EverDry Waterproofing Complaints
13
BBB. EverDry Waterproofing Business Profile
14
Justia. Home Construction and Repair
15
New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. Hiring Home Improvement Contractors