RenoSys Corporation

The company and its leadership, particularly Stewart J. "Jason" Mart, have a history of aggressive litigation and workplace-related lawsuits.

• Frivolous Litigation & Bad Faith: In a significant ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld an award for attorney fees against RenoSys (A.R.S.) and Mart, concluding that their legal actions were "frivolous because they were motivated by bad faith".
• Settlement & Contempt Disputes: The company was involved in a long-standing federal case with Natare Corporation (another pool equipment firm) regarding patent infringement and settlement violations. RenoSys was found to be bound by a 1997 settlement agreement after attempts to contest it.
• Employee Wage Theft Allegations: A 2020 federal lawsuit (Garrett v. Aquatic Renovation Systems) included allegations that the company manipulated employee hours to underpay prevailing wages and failed to pay promised bonuses and profit-sharing. [1, 2, 4]

Recent reviews from commercial and residential clients highlight severe operational and ethical red flags:

• Completion Issues & "Blackmail": Some customers have reported signed contracts that stretched for years without completion. One review alleged the company refused to finish a job unless the customer removed a negative online review, describing the tactic as "blackmail".
• Unprofessional Communication: Clients have described communication as a "nightmare," with reports of excuses for delays and "unanticipated" supply costs added late in the process.
• Lack of BBB Accreditation: Aquatic Renovation Systems, Inc. is not a BBB Accredited Business and does not meet the organization's vetting standards for trust.
• Poor Workmanship: Complaints include technical failures such as massive wrinkles in pool liners that the company allegedly failed to address despite professional inspections. [1, 2, 3]

 Internal reviews from former employees depict a volatile environment:

• Management Style: Past staff have described management as prone to "random tantrums" and "political in-crowd games".
• Operational Inconsistency: Employees noted that projects often lacked clear communication and that design changes would frequently occur halfway through a job, leading to wasted effort and frustration. [1, 2]

Natare Corporation v. Aquatic Renovation Systems: RenoSys was involved in a long-running dispute with a fierce competitor, Natare Corporation, over a patented method for installing pool liners.

• Infringement Injunction: Following a settlement, RenoSys and its officers were permanently enjoined from infringing Natare's '294 patent.
• Development of New Methods: The court later noted that RenoSys developed a separate installation method (the "RenoSys method") that Natare agreed did not infringe on their patent. [1]

• Canfield Swim Club, Inc. v. RenoSys Corporation (2023): A diversity contract dispute filed in the Southern District of Indiana.
• City Performance Disputes (2020–2022): In separate litigation, a city (location often identified in federal court dockets like the Eastern District of Michigan) brought claims for breach of contract and express warranty after a RenoSys pool liner installation reportedly failed four times due to "bubbling". The city ultimately terminated the contract and made a claim against RenoSys’s performance bond. [1, 2]

•  Recreonics Disputes (1980s–1990s): The history of the company's principals is tied to Recreonics Corporation, which saw significant legal battles during a reorganization in the early 1990s involving allegations of improper use of business names and disparaging products. [1, 2] 

Source Link