MICHIGAN — A small claims court battle over a botched $10,300 home insulation job ended with a contractor being ordered to pay over $5,100 after offering a series of bizarre scientific theories—including a claim that rainwater “YouTubes” under houses—to explain away severe moisture damage.
The case, Rachel Daly v. Terry Moore, highlighted the legal and financial perils homeowners face when dealing with unpermitted work and unlicensed contractors.
Cotton Candy vs. Fiberglass: The $10,300 Nightmare
Plaintiff Rachel Daly brought the lawsuit against contractor Terry Moore after paying him $10,300 for spray foam and fiberglass insulation installation in her home.
According to Daly, shortly after Moore installed paper-backed fiberglass insulation on her roof structure, severe moisture accumulation occurred, causing water to visibly pour down the walls.
Daly testified that the building inspector confirmed paper-backed insulation should never have been used on that specific roof structure. She argued that once the fiberglass became soaked, it shrank and lost its insulating R-value—comparing the soaked fiberglass to cotton candy melting in water.
Furthermore, Daly discovered during the dispute that Moore was operating as an unlicensed contractor. Under Michigan law, unlicensed contractors are strictly prohibited from performing work or entering contracts exceeding $600.
“We paid Terry $10,300… Upon talking with an attorney, we found out that he is not licensed and can’t actually be doing work over $600 in the state of Michigan,” Daly told the court, requesting the small claims court maximum payout of $7,000.
The “YouTubing Water” Defense
When given the opportunity to defend his work, Moore—who claimed 42 years of industry experience—offered an unconventional explanation for the moisture.
Moore cross-examined Daly regarding construction dates and rainfall, attempting to argue that groundwater and roof runoff were seeping into the crawlspace due to a scientific phenomenon he called “YouTubing.”
“When it rains outside, rain runs down the roof and ends up right beside the house,” Moore argued. “We have something called YouTube, and that’s when—we learned this in science class—when you pour water at one level, it YouTubes up to the other level. So water YouTubes and goes inside the crawl area… and you have a moisture problem.”
Moore maintained that the paper backing was necessary on an A-frame roof to prevent unfaced insulation from falling out. He claimed he offered to fix the issue by cutting slits into the paper backing to let it dry out—an “experiment” Daly refused to allow in her home.
Moore also dismissed Daly’s claim that wet fiberglass shrinks, arguing, “Fiberglass is nothing but fibered glass, and our drinking glasses don’t shrink when we pour water in them.”
The Verdict: “The Thing Speaks for Itself”
After listening to both arguments, the judge acknowledged the difficulty of small claims cases where neither side presents expensive expert witnesses, noting that the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%).
Applying the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), the judge ruled that the undisputed presence of severe water damage following the installation was sufficient proof of improper workmanship.
The judge officially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Daly $5,000 in damages plus $109.27 in court costs, bringing the total judgment against the unlicensed contractor to $5,109.27.
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x33cdmG0VPU&t=16s