Bridges Darko v. Sunrun Installation Service Inc.

── Bridges Darko v. Sunrun Installation Service Inc. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0471-24 BRIDGES DARKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICE INC., Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted February 3, 2026 – Decided May 22, 2026 Before Judges Susswein and Chase. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-1446-23. Bridges Darko, self-represented appellant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, attorneys for respondent (Suleman Malik, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Bridges Darko appeals the August 27, 2024, Law Division order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Sunrun Installation Service, Inc. and dismissing plaintiff's complaint. This case arises from defendant's installation of a solar electric system on plaintiff's roof. Plaintiff contends defendant damaged his roof during the installation, causing leaks and the deterioration of his interior ceiling and walls. After reviewing the record in light of the governing legal principles, we affirm. I. We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record. Plaintiff purchased a solar electric system from Costco on or about November 30, 2019. Defendant served as Costco's independent third-party subcontractor for the purposes of providing and installing the system. In January 2020, defendant installed the system on the roof of plaintiff's home. In May 2020, plaintiff noticed water dripping from his ceiling following snowmelt and rain. He reported the issue to defendant, believing it was related to the installation of the system. On May 27, 2020, defendant sent a technician to inspect plaintiff's roof.1 The technician concluded that there were no "solar [electric system] related leaks" and instead attributed the leak to "poor shingles" and an issue with the flashing near the attic vent. 1 Plaintiff disputes that this inspection ever occurred. However, in its summary judgment motion, defendant provided a copy of the May 2020 inspection report as well as photos from the inspection. A-0471-24 2  According to plaintiff, over the next two years, the leak continued to get worse and mold developed on his walls and ceiling. In late 2022, plaintiff hired a contractor, Kevin Mulholland LLC, to inspect and repair his roof. According to plaintiff, the contractor assessed the roof and determined that the leak was caused by the solar panel installation. On December 19, 2022, plaintiff notified defendant of additional damage to his roof. Defendant requested that plaintiff provide a report from his roofing contractor on company letterhead indicating that the damage was solar-related. In response, plaintiff forwarded an email from the contractor, in which the contractor states that he inspected the roof and determined that the leak was coming from the solar panels. Plaintiff never produced any report or further documentation from the contractor. On December 22, 2022, plaintiff requested that defendant remove the panels from his roof so that he could fix the leak. In response, defendant dispatched a contractor to perform a second inspect