Michael Watters v. Brandi Cole

No. 25A-CT-1703 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2026) · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 2, 2026 · No. 25A-CT-1703

Summary

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of Brandi Cole against Michael Watters and Allure Pools & Spas, Inc. arising from the defective installation of a fiberglass swimming pool. The court held that evidence supported findings of fraudulent misrepresentation concerning Allure Pools’ experience and use of subcontractors, and that piercing the corporate veil was warranted because the company was undercapitalized and its corporate form had been used to promote fraud and injustice. The trial court’s award included $70,800 in compensatory damages and $54,699.15 in attorney fees.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that Watters and Allure Pools made material, false representations concerning their experience and the nature of the pool-installation business, that Cole relied on those representations, and that the misrepresentations proximately caused her injury.
  2. The trial court properly pierced Allure Pools' corporate veil and held Watters personally liable because the corporate form was sufficiently ignored, controlled, or manipulated to constitute a mere instrumentality and its misuse would result in fraud or injustice.
  3. When a trial court enters findings and conclusions sua sponte, the specific findings control appellate review as to the issues they cover; where no specific findings exist, the appellate court may affirm on any legal theory supported by the evidence.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding that Watters, through Allure Pools, made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced Cole to contract for the pool installation.
  2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in piercing Allure Pools' corporate veil and holding Watters personally liable.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (20)

  • Card v. Sprinkle, 194 N.E.3d 627, 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)(followed)
  • Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020)(followed)
  • Erie Ins. Exch. v. Sams, 20 N.E.3d 182, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Wysocki, 990 N.E.2d 456, 460-61 (Ind. 2013)(followed)
  • Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 292 (Ind. 2012)(followed)
  • CoMentis, Inc. v. Purdue Research Found., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1106 (N.D. Ind. 2011)(followed)
  • Siegel v. Williams, 818 N.E.2d 510, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)(followed)
  • Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Farm Bur. Ins. Co., 867 N.E.2d 221, 225-26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)(followed)
  • Harris v. Copas, 165 N.E.3d 611, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020)(followed)
  • Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc., 997 N.E.2d 327, 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)(not reached)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…