RETURN DATE: MARCH 21, 2023 : SUPERIOR COURT

:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT : J.D. OF HARTFORD
: AT HARTFORD
V. :
:
VISION SOLAR, LLC : FEBRUARY 27, 2023

COMPLAINT

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. This is an action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

(“CUTPA”), Chapter 735a of the General Statutes, and more particularly General

Statutes § 42-110m, to obtain injunctive relief for Defendant’s violation of General

Statutes § 42-110b(a), to obtain such other relief as may be necessary to address the

injury to consumers resulting from Defendant’s violations of law, for disgorgement of ill-

gotten gains, for an accounting and other appropriate relief pursuant to General

Statutes § 42-110m(a), and for civil penalties pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110o.

2. Plaintiff, State of Connecticut, is represented by William Tong, Attorney

General, acting at the request of Michelle H. Seagull, Commissioner of Consumer

Protection of the State of Connecticut, pursuant to Chapter 735a of the General

Statutes.

3. Defendant Vision Solar, LLC is registered with the Connecticut Secretary

of State as a Pennsylvania limited liability company with a principal place of business at

511 Route 168, Blackwood, New Jersey, 08012.

4. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act or practice of

Defendant, such allegation shall be deemed to allege that the principals, officers,
directors, employees, agents or representatives of Defendant did, or authorized, such

act or practice while actively engaged in the scope of their duties.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant has been registered under the

Connecticut Home Improvement Act as a Home Improvement Contractor under

registration number HIC.0660535.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been engaged in trade or commerce

in Connecticut as a registered home improvement contractor installing, inter alia,

residential photovoltaic solar panel systems.

7. Beginning in December 2020, Defendant began offering its services as a

residential solar panel installation company in Connecticut.

8. At all relevant times, Defendant has held itself out as an affordable solar

panel company whose services allow consumers to save money on electricity by

generating solar energy in an environmentally friendly manner.

9. Defendant’s services involve installing solar panel systems which are

meant to remain on homeowners’ roofs for multiple decades, which can cost tens of

thousands of dollars, and which may represent one of the largest home improvement

projects a homeowner will ever complete.

10. Due to the high cost of solar panel installations, many consumers must

enter multi-year leases, loans, or other financing arrangements with third-party lenders,

and Defendant selects and/or suggests lenders to consumers with lenders for this

purpose, all to its benefit.

2
 11. Defendant has engaged in marketing and/or sales tactics that, separately

or taken together, cause or influence consumers to execute lengthy and expensive solar

contracts without the ability to make an informed, independent choice, including:

a. Making multiple unsolicited “cold” calls to consumers for the purpose of

setting up in-home sales visits to pitch solar contracts;

b. Making in-home visits and staying in consumers’ homes longer than

requested or permitted by the homeowner, in some cases remaining for

multiple hours and/or despite being asked to leave;

c. Pressuring consumers to sign up for solar installations the same day as

the first in-home solicitation;

d. Pressuring consumers not to have Defendant’s agreements reviewed by

counsel before signing;

e. Engaging in in-home sales pitches to individuals whom, due to intellectual

or linguistic challenges, salespersons knew or should have known were

unable to make informed decisions as to whether to purchase Defendant’s

services;

f. Obscuring the effect of a consumer’s signature, such as by falsely stating

or suggesting that the signature was only for “preapproval” purposes, or

by claiming that a consumer has already entered into a contract with

Defendant when they had not;

g. Presenting consumers with contracts or other documents, and soliciting

the consumer’s electronic signatures, on the salesperson’s cell phone,

3
 tablet or laptop computer where the consumer could not easily read or

evaluate the documents in advance; and

h. Failing to provide consumers with copies of contracts they had signed until

days or weeks later.

12. In several instances where homeowners have agreed to execute contracts

with Defendant, Defendant has failed to obtain the required local permits before

commencing work.

13. Defendant has caused unreasonable delays in delivering working solar

panel systems as contracted for because it has failed to timely obtain permits necessary

to complete the work.

14. In periods where Defendant’s consumers’ solar systems have been

installed but not activated because of Defendant’s failure to obtain permits or other

delays not the fault of the consumer, consumers have incurred payment obligations to

third-party lenders for solar systems they cannot use, for which Defendants have not

fully reimbursed or indemnified the consumers.

15. In periods where Defendants’ consumers’ solar system have been

installed but not yet activated as a result of Defendant’s failure to obtain permits or other

delays not the fault of the consumer, consumers have lost their potential solar

production to offset their electric bills, for which Defendants have not fully reimbursed or

indemnified the consumers.

16. Defendant has made misrepresentations to consumers concerning the tax

benefits of installing solar systems, including representing that consumers would gain

the benefit of certain tax credits despite knowing that due to the consumer’s income, the

4
consumer would not see any such benefit, or would not see such benefit to the extent

represented.

17. Defendant applied for town electrical permits falsely using the credentials

of a licensed electrician not employed with Defendant at the time of the applications or

without the authorized signature of such electrician.

18. Defendant offered and installed solar systems without a duly licensed

electrician to perform the electrical work, including but not limited to the connection of

the solar system to the residence’s existing electrical system or utility meter.

19. Defendants have failed to respond to complaints and requests from

consumers to address the aforesaid acts and practices.

20. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, caused substantial

injury to consumers, including that consumers were sold, leased, or otherwise provided

expensive solar panel installations without a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the costs

and benefits; were not timely provided with working solar panel systems as contracted

for; received home improvement work without the proper permits required by local

authorities; and incurred out of pocket costs and expenses.

COUNT ONE: CUTPA—UNFAIRNESS

21. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

22. By engaging in the aforesaid acts and practices, Defendant has violated

the public policy against making misrepresentations and nondisclosures, against high-

pressure in-home sales tactics, against unfair practices by home improvement

contractors and salespersons, and against unlawful trade work.

5
 23. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, are oppressive,

unethical, immoral, and unscrupulous.

24. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, therefore constitute

unfair acts or practices in violation of General Statutes § 42-110b(a).

COUNT TWO: CUTPA—DECEPTION

25. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

26. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, were deceptive in that

Defendant made untrue or misleading statements to consumers regarding material facts

related to solar system installations that were likely to mislead consumers acting

reasonably under the circumstances.

27. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, were deceptive in that

Defendant applied for town electrical permits falsely using the credentials of a licensed

electrician not employed with Defendant at the time of the applications or without the

authorized signature of such electrician.

28. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, were deceptive in that

Defendant held themselves out as offering residential solar installations to consumers,

and completed such installations, despite not having a duly licensed electrician to apply

for and complete the electrical work, including but not limited to the connection of the

solar system to the residence’s existing electrical system or utility meter.

29. Defendant’s acts and practices, as described herein, therefore constitute

deceptive acts or practices in violation of General Statutes § 42-110b(a).

6
COUNT THREE: CUTPA—VIOLATIONS OF HOME IMPROVEMENT ACT

30. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

31. Defendant’s conduct as described above violated General Statutes § 42-

110b by violating the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes chapter 400, including in

that Defendant:

a. Commenced work without obtaining the applicable building or construction

permits as required, in violation of General Statutes § 20-427(i); and

b. Failed to provide and deliver to homeowners a completed copy of home

improvement contracts at the time such contracts were executed, in

violation of General Statutes § 20-429(c).

COUNT FOUR: CUTPA—VIOLATIONS OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING STATUTES

32. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

33. Defendant’s conduct as described above violated General Statutes § 42-

110b by violating General Statutes §§ 20-334 and 20-341(d) including in that Defendant

applied for local electrical permits without having an appropriately licensed electrical

contractor sign, or authorize the signing of, such applications.

34. Defendant’s conduct as described above violated General Statutes § 20-

338b and 20-341(d) including in that Defendant engaged in, practiced, and offered to

perform work requiring an electrical license pursuant to chapter 393 of the General

Statutes without such license.

7
COUNT FIVE: WILLFULNESS

35. Paragraphs 1-34 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

36. Defendant knew, or should have known, that its conduct was unfair or

deceptive in violation of General Statutes § 42-110b, and as a consequence the

Defendant is subject to civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation pursuant to

General Statutes § 42-110o(b).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims the following relief:

1. An order pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m(a), enjoining the

Defendant from further violation of General Statutes § 42-110b(a).

2. An order pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m(a), directing the

Defendant to pay restitution.

3. An order pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110o(b), directing the

Defendant to pay civil penalties for each willful violation of General Statutes § 42-

110b(a).

4. An order pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m(a), directing the

Defendant to disgorge all revenues, profits and gains achieved in whole or in part

through the unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices complained of herein.

5. An award of attorneys’ fees, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m(a).

6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

8
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:__/s/ Joseph E. Gasser__________

Joseph E. Gasser, Juris No. 443231
Lauren H. Bidra, Juris No. 440552
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860-808-5400
Fax: 860-808-5593
[email protected]
[email protected]

9
RETURN DATE: MARCH 21, 2023 : SUPERIOR COURT
:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT : J.D. OF HARTFORD
: AT HARTFORD
V. :
:
VISION SOLAR, LLC : FEBRUARY 27, 2023

STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND

The Plaintiff states that the amount in demand is greater than $15,000, exclusive

of interest and costs.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:__/s/ Joseph E. Gasser______

Joseph E. Gasser, Juris No. 443231
Lauren H. Bidra, Juris No. 440552
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860-808-5400
Fax: 860-808-5593
[email protected]
[email protected]

10