Rubinsky Roofing Judgment: The 90-Day Claim Window

Get a Texas Consumer Protection Lawyer — Now

A court order, a 90-day documentation window, an insurance file and a homeowner contract are four separate records, and an experienced Texas attorney can read all four against one roof. Call or text 24/7. Get connected with an experienced consumer protection lawyer near you. Our referral service is free for the people we serve; the lawyer you hire sets their own fees.

512-872-4400 · Text Us

What Changed, and When

The Attorney General announced the judgment on October 8, 2026. The case is styled State of Texas v. Rubinsky Roofing, LLC and Gilad Rubinsky, Cause No. 429-03480-2026, in the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County. The Final Order and Permanent Injunction posted with the release is a no-answer default judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239 — the State moved for it because neither defendant answered the suit. By its own text the order provides:

27 DTPA violations found, under Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.46 subsections (a), (b)(5), (b)(9), (b)(13) and (b)(24). The court found that five of the 27 involved acts calculated to acquire or deprive money or property from consumers who were 65 or older.
$1,520,000.00 in civil penalties, paid to the state: $270,000.00 under Section 17.47(c)(1), representing the $10,000 maximum for each of the 27 violations, and $1,250,000.00 under Section 17.47(c)(2), representing $250,000 for each of the five violations involving a consumer 65 or older. The court stated it considered the Section 17.47(g) factors and found the maximum penalty appropriate for each violation.
$53,440.00 in attorney fees to the State under Texas Government Code Section 402.006(c), plus court costs and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.
$500,626.64 into a segregated Restitution Account within 30 days after entry, under Section 17.47(d), to be used for consumer restitution and nothing else.
A consumer list, due within 30 days and no later than the 35th day after entry. The defendants have to identify every Texas consumer who paid either of them for roofing services, state the amount paid, give the address and telephone number, and state whether the work was completed, partially completed, or never begun — highlighting every consumer who paid in full or in part and whose work was not completed. The order states that an amount paid includes any insurance payments made to either defendant on a consumer behalf.
Notice within 15 days after the Consumer Protection Division receives that list.
A 90-day documentation window. A consumer seeking restitution must submit documentation sufficient to establish payment to the defendants and resulting loss within 90 days after the date notice is sent. The defendants then report claimants and their support to the Consumer Protection Division and the court every 30 days, and pay each consumer the amount the documentation supports.
Liability beyond the account. The order states the defendants are liable for paying restitution even if the restitution amount exceeds $500,626.64, and that funds left after all timely claims are resolved stay in the account pending further order of the court.
A statewide permanent injunction, enforceable by contempt, against representing that work will begin or finish on time without the ability or intent to do so, representing that a roof needs repair or replacement when it does not, misrepresenting costs or fees, accepting payment with no intent to perform, false statements about the cause or date of claimed damage, and omitting material information about the ability or willingness to perform.
Contract and record-keeping terms. Post-judgment contracts with Texas consumers have to carry a start and completion date, any delay has to be explained in writing with a new date no more than 30 days out, and records concerning Texas consumers going back five years are preserved until restitution is paid.

One date is worth stating precisely, because every deadline above runs from it. The posted copy shows a 10/5/2026 stamp above the signature line, and its electronic-service page shows the proposed order submitted on September 30, 2026, with the signature and judge lines blank on the copy as posted. The deadlines in the order run from “entry of this Final Judgment” and from “the date notice is sent” — dates the posted copy does not itself fix. The clock is defined; the calendar is not public yet.

The suit behind it was filed in May 2026. The Attorney General May 19, 2026 release alleged that the company marketed and accepted payment for roofing work that was never completed, including insurance proceeds; delayed projects for months; made repeated phone calls and text messages; used high-pressure sales tactics; made misleading statements about the need for repairs; and charged hidden breach-of-contract fees, with one consumer describing a fee of about $7,500.

Who in Texas This Reaches

Three groups, and they are not the same group.

Consumers who appear on the defendants list. These are the people the Consumer Protection Division notifies, and the 90-day window runs from that notice. Fox 4 reported that the company accepted payments from dozens of customers totaling over $500,000 for work it never completed. The releases and the order do not publish a total victim count.
Consumers who paid but may not appear on it. The notice step in Paragraph 6 runs on the list the defendants produce under Paragraph 4. A judgment can order a list; it cannot make a list complete. A homeowner who paid and who never hears from the Consumer Protection Division has no way to read that silence from the outside.
Homeowners whose insurer paid the company. The order counts insurance payments made to either defendant on a consumer behalf as an amount paid. That matters to a household that never wrote a personal check and may not think of itself as having paid anything.

Geographically, the company was founded in 2018 and primarily served the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex; the case was filed in Collin County. Neither release names cities. The injunction, though, is statewide and runs against the defendants and anyone in active concert or participation with them — and the conduct described in the petition, insurance-funded roof work sold after storm damage, is a pattern that recurs across Texas rather than one confined to a single metro.

What This Changes Legally

Four things, each from the order or the statute it was entered under.

1. The restitution account has a reach limit written into the statute. Section 17.47(d) lets a court order relief to compensate identifiable persons for actual damages and to restore money or property acquired through unlawful acts, and it provides that damages under that subsection may not include losses incurred more than two years before the division filed suit. The division filed in May 2026. Work and payments further back than that sit outside what that subsection reaches, whatever a homeowner paid.

2. The documentation, not the notice, is what pays a claim. Paragraph 7 conditions payment on documentation “sufficient to establish payment to Defendants and resulting loss.” Notice starts the 90 days; the packet is what the amount is measured against. The order also routes that packet to the defendants, with reporting to the Consumer Protection Division and the court every 30 days.

3. A judgment and a collection are separate stages. This is a default judgment against a company and an individual who did not answer. Section 17.47(d) provides that if a person ordered to make restitution fails to do so within three months after the order becomes final and nonappealable, the court may appoint a receiver or order sequestration of assets. The order also awards the State all writs and processes needed for enforcement. An order to pay and a payment received are different facts.

4. A consumer claim of their own is a separate track with its own clock. The DTPA provides a private action, and two provisions set its timing. Section 17.565 requires an action to be commenced within two years after the deceptive act occurred, or within two years after the consumer discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered it, with a 180-day extension where the plaintiff proves the delay was caused by the defendant knowingly acting to induce postponement. Section 17.505(a) requires written notice at least 60 days before filing, describing the complaint in reasonable detail and stating the economic damages, mental anguish damages and expenses, including attorney fees, reasonably incurred. Section 17.50 is where additional damages for knowing or intentional conduct are addressed. None of that is affected by the State judgment; it runs alongside it.

What Kind of Option Might Apply

Nothing on this page tells a reader what their situation is. What it can do is name the questions a Texas consumer protection attorney is in a position to answer by reading one household paperwork against this order:

Whether the payment and the loss fall inside the two-year reach Section 17.47(d) draws around the division filing date.
What a documentation packet under Paragraph 7 would need to contain for a particular roof, and what records establish “resulting loss” rather than only payment.
Whether insurance proceeds paid to the company put a household inside the order definition of an amount paid, and whether an unperformed scope raises a separate question with the insurer.
Whether a claim of the consumer own under the DTPA is still inside Section 17.565, and how the Section 17.505 notice period fits the timing.
How the restitution process in the judgment and an individual claim interact, which is a question about one set of facts rather than a general rule.
For a household where the consumer was 65 or older, whether the elder-related provisions the court applied here bear on their own position.

Attorneys who handle deceptive trade practices work describe the first step as assembling the file rather than deciding the claim: the contract, the estimate and any change orders, proof of what was paid and by whom, the insurance claim file and the carrier scope and payment, photographs of the roof before and after, and the written and text record of what was promised and when.

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

The 90 days in Paragraph 7 is the shortest clock in this story, and it does not start on a date anyone can look up today. It starts when the Consumer Protection Division sends notice, which itself waits on a list due within 30 days of entry. A household that has the file assembled before notice arrives is in a different position from one that starts assembling after.

Section 17.565 runs from the deceptive act or from the date it was discovered, not from the day someone reads about a judgment. For work done in 2024 and 2025, two years is already partly spent, and the 180-day extension is something a plaintiff has to prove rather than something that applies on its own.

Section 17.505 adds 60 days in front of a filing rather than at the end of one. A notice letter sent today is a filing that becomes possible two months from today, which is why the notice date and the limitations date are usually read together.

Records decay in a specific way here. Roofs get re-roofed, carriers close claim files, phone carriers age out text messages, and a company that did not answer a lawsuit is not a reliable custodian of its own paperwork. The order preserves the defendants records for five years, but a homeowner own copies are the ones they control.

Get a Texas Consumer Protection Lawyer — Now

Whether the question is a roof that was paid for and never finished, insurance proceeds that never reached the work, a documentation packet for the restitution account, or a claim of your own under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, an experienced Texas attorney can read the paperwork and explain what the law does with it. Call or text 24/7. Get connected with an experienced consumer protection lawyer near you. Our referral service is free for the people we serve.