Assurance Residential v. North Florida Roofscapes: A Panhandle Roofing Feud Over Ads, Reviews, Awards and a Disputed Joint Venture

Assurance Residential, Inc. v. North Florida Roofscapes, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03608-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Pensacola Division), is a trademark case on the docket, but at its core it is a dispute over who built a business and who owns its customers.

Assurance is a storm-restoration roofer founded in 2008. It says its former Panhandle salesman, Eric Sawyer, left in late 2024 and took its customer list with him. Assurance also alleges that Sawyer’s new company, North Florida Roofscapes (“NFR”):

• used the name ASSURANCE RESIDENTIAL in Google ads and in its website’s code;
• claimed Assurance’s completed roofs and a manufacturer award as its own; and
• padded its reputation with misleading reviews and “years in business” claims.

NFR tells a different story. It says Sawyer was not an employee but a 50% partner in an oral joint venture with Assurance’s principal, Ryan Calder, formed over a meeting at an oyster bar in 2020. In NFR’s account, Calder pushed Sawyer out, kept roughly $600,000 in a shared account and then tried to take Sawyer’s customers. NFR has answered, asserted ten affirmative defenses and filed a three-count counterclaim. Assurance’s motion to strike those defenses and dismiss the counterclaim has been fully briefed since September 10, 2026, and awaits a ruling from Judge T. Kent Wetherell II.

The parties

	Assurance Residential, Inc. (plaintiff / counter-defendant)	North Florida Roofscapes, LLC (defendant / counter-plaintiff)
Entity	Georgia corporation, registered to do business in Florida since January 12, 2018; principal address 215 Bay Grove Blvd., Freeport, FL	Florida LLC formed September 27, 2023; principal place of business in Santa Rosa Beach (per the complaint) and Destin (per the counterclaim)
Principal	Ryan Calder	Eric Sawyer (with partner Justin Mallard)
Founded / first job	2008	First job alleged to be in January 2025, weeks after Sawyer left Assurance in December 2024
Licenses	Florida certified building, residential and roofing contractor licenses; Georgia residential contractor license	Florida contractor license

The shared “ROOF” phone number, explained

NFR alleges that Calder promised Sawyer he could keep (850) 790-ROOF, Sawyer’s business line, while Assurance kept (850) 888-ROOF. NFR says Calder then shut down the 790-ROOF number after Sawyer hired a lawyer to recover unpaid commissions, and blocked Sawyer from the Google Business, Instagram and Facebook accounts Sawyer had built.

The mark at issue

Assurance does not hold a federal registration. It relies on common-law rights in ASSURANCE RESIDENTIAL, claimed in use since 2008, and on Florida Trademark Registration No. T26000000473 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97–98). A Florida registration is “prima facie evidence” of validity and ownership in Florida under Fla. Stat. § 495.061. It does not, however, support a federal § 1114 claim, which requires a federal registration. NFR’s affirmative defense that Assurance never used “Assurance” as a trademark aims squarely at that gap.

The cases at a glance

	Trademark case	Related insurance case
Caption	Assurance Residential, Inc. v. North Florida Roofscapes, LLC	United National Insurance Co. v. North Florida Roofscapes, LLC and Assurance Residential, Inc.
Case number	3:26-cv-03608-TKW-HTC	3:26-cv-05079
Filed	April 27, 2026	October 2, 2026
Division	Pensacola	Pensacola
Judges	District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II; Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon	Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon; referring Judge T. Kent Wetherell II
Operative pleadings	First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19); Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Doc. 25)	Complaint attaching the policy (Ex. A) and Assurance’s First Amended Complaint (Ex. B)
Jury	Demanded	—
Status (Oct. 24, 2026)	Assurance’s motion to strike defenses and dismiss the counterclaim (Doc. 28) fully briefed and pending; docket flagged “MEDIATION”	Pending

The insurer’s suit matters because the amended complaint leans on advertising theories: false advertising, misleading statements and use of a competitor’s name in ads. Those are the kinds of allegations that can fall within a commercial general liability policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage, which is likely why the carrier asked the court to decide whether it owes a defense.

What Assurance alleges

The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) tells the story of a salesperson who left and took the brand’s reputation with him.

• The relationship. Sawyer began working with Assurance in 2019 as an independent contractor and helped expand the company into Pensacola after Hurricane Sally in 2020. He had access to Assurance’s AccuLynx customer-management system.
• The departure. Sawyer left in December 2024. Assurance alleges NFR did its first roofing job in January 2025, and that Sawyer used Assurance’s customer list to solicit Assurance customers in Destin, Miramar Beach, Santa Rosa Beach and Navarre. One text quoted in the complaint reads: “It’s Eric with North Florida Roofscapes formally Assurance Residential.”
• Borrowed credentials. Assurance says NFR copied its contract and warranty forms and advertised “7+ years in business” when it had operated for a matter of months.
• Reviews. The complaint challenges reviews on NFR’s profiles, including one by a Georgia reviewer and a review dated 2022, before NFR existed. Assurance alleges these were reviews of work done for Assurance, or were not genuine.
• Awards. NFR allegedly promoted a 2025 Google “Best Roofing Contractor Destin” award and a Worthouse “Best of 2024 – Best Commercial Install” award for a project called “The Palms.” Assurance says the Worthouse award was later reissued in Assurance’s name.
• Project photos. NFR allegedly showed completed-project photos of Assurance jobs as its own work.
• Search and ads. Assurance alleges NFR ran Google sponsored ads that used ASSURANCE RESIDENTIAL in the ad text. It also alleges “keyword stuffing”: the Open Graph and schema fields in NFR’s website code captioned images “Assurance Residential Roofing.” A Google AI Overview, the complaint says, linked the two companies.

Counts and relief

Count	Claim
I	False designation of origin, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)
II	Florida common-law trademark infringement
III	Florida common-law unfair competition
IV	False advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)
V	Misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. § 817.41
VI	Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.
VII	Tortious interference with business relationships

There is no § 1114 count (Assurance has no federal registration) and no trade-secret count, even though the customer-list allegations would seem to invite one. Assurance asks for an injunction reaching metatags, page source code and Google ad text; destruction of infringing materials; a sworn compliance report; NFR’s profits, trebled; corrective advertising; nominal and punitive damages under § 817.41(6); and attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Fla. Stat. § 501.2105 and § 817.41(6).

NFR’s answer and defenses

NFR’s answer offers an innocent explanation for most of the conduct alleged:

• “7+ years” described Sawyer’s own experience, and the wording has since been changed.
• The BBB sets the “years in business” figure itself, and it changes automatically after 13 months.
• The Georgia review was genuine, left for work done by NFR partner Justin Mallard. An AI-generated reply to it was corrected.
• The 2022 review praises “Eric” personally, not Assurance.
• References to Assurance on NFR’s site were overlooked in the rebrand and have been cleaned up.
• The ad Assurance cites does not appear when NFR runs the same search.
• The contract and warranty forms are industry boilerplate.

The answer to the amended complaint (Doc. 25) pleads ten defenses: failure to state a claim, unclean hands, estoppel, lack of use as a trademark, breach of the joint venture, lack of causation, failure to state tortious interference, the competition privilege, protection of a financial interest, and a reservation of rights. The original answer also pleaded lack of standing and failure to join an indispensable party, both based on Assurance being a Georgia corporation. The amended complaint corrected Assurance’s state of incorporation, and those two defenses were dropped.

The counterclaim: “we were partners”;

NFR’s counterclaim recasts the case as a partnership breakup.

• Sawyer began roofing in Georgia in April 2019 and was invited to the Panhandle after Hurricane Sally in September 2020.
• In October 2020, Sawyer and Calder met at Shunk Gully Oyster Bar in Santa Rosa Beach and agreed to an oral joint venture. Calder took 50%, and Sawyer and two colleagues split the rest; it later became 50/50 between Calder and Sawyer. Salespeople earned a 50% front-end commission, with protection in the event of a buyout.
• About $600,000 accumulated in the joint account. Sawyer built the venture’s SEO and social-media accounts.
• In September 2023, Calder offered Sawyer three options for the relationship. NFR was formed on September 27, 2023.
• In September 2024, Sawyer was told to stop selling and was removed from the bank account. Calder shut down the 790-ROOF number promised to Sawyer, started criminal proceedings and contacted NFR’s customers.
• On February 3, 2026, Assurance sent a demand letter for $200,000.

NFR pleads three counts: (I) a declaratory judgment seeking eight declarations about the joint venture and Sawyer’s rights, (II) Florida common-law unfair competition, and (III) tortious interference.

The pending motion

On August 13, 2026, Assurance moved to strike NFR’s affirmative defenses and dismiss the counterclaim (Doc. 28). NFR responded on September 10 (Doc. 32). The motion is pending.

Issue	Assurance’s argument	NFR’s response
Pleading standard for defenses	Twombly and Iqbal plausibility should apply to affirmative defenses; each defense is conclusory	The Northern District does not apply Twombly/Iqbal to defenses: GMA Garnet (USA) Corp. v. US Iron Fla, LLC (Wetherell, J., Feb. 24, 2026); Summers v. Sacred Heart Health System (Wetherell, J., 2023); Laing v. CarMax (2026). A “failure to state a claim” defense is treated as a denial, not stricken
Standing for the declaratory count	NFR did not exist in 2020 (Fla. Stat. § 605.0201), so any joint-venture rights belong to Sawyer, not NFR (Alea London Ltd. v. Sea Garden Hospitality)	NFR’s rights flow through Sawyer, its principal
Counterclaim Count II	No deception or likelihood of confusion is alleged (Bespoke Studio, Inc. v. Gabbe Private Ltd., N.D. Fla. 2025)	The facts pleaded support unfair competition
Counterclaim Count III	Misrepresentation-based interference must meet Rule 9(b) (Al Rushaid Petroleum Inv. Co. v. Siemens Energy, 11th Cir. 2025); NFR received the money it claims, so it has no damages (Elephant Shoe, LLC v. Cook, N.D. Fla. 2026)	The counterclaim does not plead fraud, so Rule 9(b) does not apply; Elephant Shoe is distinguishable; leave to amend requested

NFR also says Assurance’s conferral certificate is partly inaccurate because the third-party-rights argument was never raised during the parties’ conference. That is a pointed accusation in a district that takes its conferral rule (Local Rule 7.1) seriously.

Docket timeline

Date	Event
Apr 27, 2026	Complaint filed (Doc. 1).
May 12, 2026	NFR served
May 29, 2026	NFR’s opposed motion for extension granted in part; answer due June 24
Jun 24, 2026	Answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim (Doc. 13)
Jun 25, 2026	Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 14): discovery opens immediately, even if a motion to dismiss is pending; Rule 26(f) report due Aug. 10
Jul 20, 2026	First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), filed with consent, correcting Assurance’s state of incorporation to Georgia
Jul 22, 2026	Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 24)
Jul 30, 2026	Answer to amended complaint and counterclaim (Doc. 25)
Aug 6, 2026	Joint Rule 26(f) report
Aug 7, 2026	Final Scheduling Order (Doc. 27)
Aug 13, 2026	Motion to strike and dismiss (Doc. 28)
Sep 10, 2026	Galloway Johnson appears for NFR; response filed (Doc. 32)
Sep 11, 2026	Motion referred to Judge Wetherell; pending
Oct 2, 2026	United National Insurance files coverage action, No. 3:26-cv-05079

Key takeaways for Florida businesses

1. A rebrand isn’t finished until the code is clean

NFR says the Assurance references on its site were leftovers “overlooked in the rebrand.” Assurance calls them keyword stuffing. Either way, the evidence came from places most business owners never look: Open Graph tags, schema markup, image captions and page source. When people leave and start a new company, audit everything: website code and metadata, Google Business Profile, BBB and manufacturer directories, social accounts, email signatures, ad copy and phone listings. Keep screenshots showing the date you cleaned it up.

2. Using a competitor’s name in ad text is the risky part

Bidding on a competitor’s name as a keyword is generally lawful. Putting the competitor’s name in the ad text a consumer sees is different, and that is what Assurance alleges here. If you advertise against a rival, keep its name out of headlines, descriptions and display URLs, and keep records of your campaign settings. Ad platforms keep change histories, and both sides should preserve them early.

3. Reviews, awards and “years in business” are false-advertising claims waiting to happen

Four of Assurance’s seven counts are about advertising, not the mark itself: § 1125(a)(1)(B), Fla. Stat. § 817.41, FDUTPA and unfair competition. Reviews earned at a former employer, awards for projects done under another company’s name, borrowed project photos and inflated experience claims all give a competitor a claim. The FTC’s 2024 rule on fake reviews and testimonials adds federal civil penalties for misrepresenting reviews. If a claim describes the person rather than the company, say so plainly (“our founder has 7+ years of experience”).

4. Departures and partnership breakups become trademark cases

This case is really about who owned what when a working relationship ended. Assurance pleads infringement and interference while NFR pleads an oral 50/50 joint venture. A written agreement would have answered most of the questions now before the court: who owns the phone numbers, social accounts and customer data, what commissions are owed on exit, and whether non-solicitation applies. Florida enforces reasonable restrictive covenants under Fla. Stat. § 542.335, but only if they are in a signed writing.

5. Get the parties right from the start

Both sides hit party problems. Assurance’s original complaint misstated its own state of incorporation, which gave NFR standing and indispensable-party defenses until the complaint was amended. Assurance, in turn, argues that NFR cannot assert joint-venture rights that arose in 2020, three years before NFR was formed, and that the rights belong to Sawyer individually. Check Sunbiz and the other states’ records before you file and think about whether the individual should be a party. Sawyer’s absence from the counterclaim may be its biggest weakness.

6. Know your judge on affirmative defenses

Motions to strike boilerplate defenses are common, but Judge Wetherell has repeatedly declined to apply Twombly/Iqbal to affirmative defenses and treats a “failure to state a claim” defense as a denial (GMA Garnet, Feb. 2026). Before you spend fees on a motion to strike in the Pensacola Division, read the presiding judge’s recent orders. A motion that is likely to be denied can still be useful if it narrows the case, but it rarely ends one.

7. Tender to your insurer, and expect the insurer to fight

United National’s declaratory-judgment action shows how quickly coverage becomes its own lawsuit. Advertising-injury coverage may respond to false-advertising and misappropriation-of-advertising-ideas claims, even when trademark infringement is excluded. Tender any complaint immediately, ask whether the carrier is defending under a reservation of rights, and factor the coverage case into mediation, which must happen by March 31, 2027.

8. Use the scheduling order to your advantage

The Initial Scheduling Order opened discovery right away, before any motion to dismiss was resolved, and the parties secured a stipulated protective order within a month. The Final Scheduling Order then gave them until May 2027 for discovery. In the Northern District, a pending motion does not pause discovery, so serve preservation demands and early discovery on ad accounts, review platforms and the CRM.

9. A state registration helps, but it is not a federal registration

Assurance’s Florida registration gives prima facie evidence of validity and ownership under Fla. Stat. § 495.061 and supports its state claims. It does not support a federal § 1114 claim, a nationwide presumption or customs recordation. NFR’s “lack of use as a trademark” defense targets that gap. Florida businesses that rely on a common-word name should consider a federal application, especially when expansion or a key employee’s departure is foreseeable.

Involved in a trademark dispute in the Northern District of Florida? Contact us our team of Florida Trademark Litigation Team at [email protected] or call 305-374-8303 on how we can help.