CJ-2025-7 - Michael and Kelly Lovin v. Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc.

What's This Case About?

Imagine spending tens of thousands of dollars on a backyard oasis, only to have it turn into a sinkhole-riddled swamp with a sand filter that leaks like a colander and a pump too weak to circulate anything but regret. That’s exactly what happened to Michael and Kelly Lovin—except instead of a splashy retreat, they got a $21,631.90 arbitration award and a front-row seat to one of the most gloriously petty civil sagas in recent Tulsa County history. This isn’t just a story about a botched pool job. It’s a tale of broken promises, ignored calls, and a company that apparently thought “warranty” was just a fancy word for “never mind.”

Michael and Kelly Lovin aren’t reality TV stars or social media influencers chasing clout with a backyard flex. They’re regular homeowners who, like many before them, decided an in-ground pool was the golden ticket to summer bliss. They signed a “Standard Swimming Pool Contract” with Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc.—a business with a name that sounds like it belongs in a Miami Vice episode, not a midsize Oklahoma suburb. Dolphin, represented by Doug Hoehn and Robert Nielson, presumably promised them blue water, smooth concrete, and zero structural failures. What they delivered? A vinyl-lined nightmare that started collapsing before the chlorine even had time to burn.

The problems began almost immediately after installation. The pool developed sinkholes—yes, plural—under the liner, like the backyard was slowly being swallowed by some aquatic underworld. Now, sinkholes under a pool are not normal. They’re not quirky. They’re not “part of the charm.” They’re a sign that something has gone very wrong with the installation, likely involving improper backfilling or compaction. Dolphin Pool did fix the first round, which might’ve earned them a passing grade for effort—except they promised to fix the second wave and then… ghosted. Literally. On October 2, 2023, Dolphin acknowledged the issue, admitted the “basketball-sized holes” were covered under warranty, and said someone would call soon to schedule repairs. That call never came. The sinkholes remained. The Lovins were left with a pool that looked like it had been through an earthquake and a divorce.

But wait—there’s more. The sand filter? Leaking. Constantly. Like a faucet that won’t shut off, except it’s spilling water and your dignity. The Lovins reported it. Dolphin did nothing. So they paid $1,142.90 to replace the filter and sand themselves. Fair? Maybe. But also infuriating when you’ve already paid a professional to get it right the first time. Then there’s the pump—the heart of any pool system. The Lovins were later told by another contractor that the one Dolphin installed was undersized, meaning it couldn’t circulate water properly. They spent $1,628.95 to replace it. But—and this is a big but—the arbitrator wasn’t having it. Why? Because the Lovins didn’t tell Dolphin about the pump issue before replacing it. No notice, no chance to fix it, no opportunity to argue their pump was fine. So that claim got tossed. Which, sure, is the rules—but also kind of a bummer when you’re trying to enjoy a functioning pool and not play detective with your contractor.

So why are we in court? Or, more accurately, why are we in arbitration? Because the contract said so. When things went south, the Lovins didn’t sue right away. They followed the rules. They filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), which is like court’s cooler, faster cousin—still official, but with less courtroom drama and more binding decisions. After a full evidentiary hearing on November 25, 2024, the arbitrator, Dwight L. Smith, heard testimony from both sides, reviewed exhibits, and basically said, “Yeah, Dolphin dropped the ball.” The award? $9,821.13 for the unrepaired sinkholes (based on a quote from another company, Reliable Pool), $1,142.90 for the filter, and—here’s the kicker—$8,268 in attorney fees, plus $2,400 in arbitration costs. Total: $21,631.90. And get this—Dolphin didn’t even show up for the arbitration hearing. They sent lawyers, sure, but their owner and operations manager did testify, so they weren’t completely AWOL. Still, for a company that promised to fix its own mistakes and then vanished? The no-show energy is strong.

Now, let’s talk about that number: $21,631.90. Is that a lot for a pool disaster? Depends. If you’re a billionaire, it’s a rounding error. But for most people, that’s a down payment on a car, a year of daycare, or a really nice vacation. It’s not an outrageous sum given the circumstances—especially when you factor in that the Lovins had to hire another company just to figure out how bad the damage was, and they’re still not 100% sure what’s under that liner. The arbitrator didn’t give them everything—they wanted over $41,000—but he gave them what was provable, what was reasonable, and what the law allows. And he handed them attorney fees because, in Oklahoma, when a company breaches an express warranty and then refuses to honor it, the law says: “You don’t get to make the victim pay to fix your mess.”

So what do the Lovins want now? Simple: confirmation. They want the District Court in Tulsa County to take that arbitration award and turn it into a full-blown judgment—something they can enforce, something they can use to collect if Dolphin keeps stonewalling. Because right now, that award is just a piece of paper. They want it to be a legal sledgehammer.

And our take? The most absurd part isn’t the sinkholes. It’s not even the leaking filter. It’s the sheer audacity of a company that says, “Yes, we’ll fix this under warranty,” and then disappears like it never happened. This isn’t just incompetence. It’s a failure of basic customer responsibility. We’re not rooting for the Lovins because they’re perfect—they should’ve notified Dolphin about the pump issue first. But we are rooting for them because they followed the rules, documented everything, and didn’t go nuclear on social media. They went through the proper channels. And they won. Big time.

In a world where shady contractors vanish into the ether and homeowners are left holding the bag, this case is a small victory for accountability. Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc., you had one job. And you blew it. Now you owe $21,631.90. Pay up. And maybe, just maybe, send the Lovins a fruit basket. Or a working pump.

Case Overview

$21,320 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

L. Paul Hood, III, and William H. Ahrberg

Pray Walker, P.C. and William H. Ahrberg, Attorney at Law

Relief Sought

$21,320 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Michael and Kelly Lovin individual
Rep: L. Paul Hood, III, and William H. Ahrberg

Defendants

Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc. business
Rep: Doug Hoehn and Robert Nielson

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract	Claimants seek damages and attorney fees for Defendant's failure to properly perform and complete Respondent's obligations arising by virtue of a Standard Swimming Pool Contract.

Petition Text

1,665 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL AND KELLY LOVIN ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) DOLPHIN POOL & SUPPLY, INC. ) Defendant. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO 12 O.S. § 1873 COME NOW Plaintiffs, Michael and Kelly Lovin (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel of record, and, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1873, file this action and request that the Court confirm an arbitration award in their favor, resulting from arbitration proceedings occurring in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, between Plaintiffs and Defendant Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc. Plaintiffs further show the Court as follows: 1. Pursuant to the Standard Swimming Pool Contract executed by Plaintiffs and Defendant, Plaintiffs submitted a Demand for Arbitration to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on July 29, 2024. 2. Upon receipt of the Demand for Arbitration, the American Arbitration Association assigned the case number as American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-24-0007-0365. 3. On November 25, 2024, a final evidentiary hearing was held in American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-24-0007-0365. 4. On December 2, 2024, the Arbitrator rendered a Final Award favoring Plaintiffs against Defendant for a net award of $21,631.90 (inclusive of costs & attorney fees), with post-judgment interest to begin accruing on or about December 12, 2024 if Defendant had not yet paid the judgment. A copy of the Final Award is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. The Final Award was in all respects proper and has not been challenged. 6. To date, Defendant has not paid any part of the arbitration award to Plaintiffs, thus requiring this action against Defendant allowing Plaintiffs to levy execution against the assets of Defendant or otherwise proceed to collect the amount due. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Michael and Kelly Lovin pray for an order confirming the Arbitrator’s award in their favor, for entry of a final judgment against Defendant Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc., for recovery of their attorney fees and costs incurred in seeking to enforce the arbitration award pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1876, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Respectfully submitted, L. Paul Hood, III, OBA No. 35134 PRAY WALKER, P.C. 21 North Greenwood Avenue, Suite 400 Tulsa, OK 74120 Tele: (918) 581-5500 Fax: (918) 581-5599 [email protected] AND William H. Ahrberg, OBA No. 161 William H. Ahrberg, Attorney at Law 118 West Broadway Cushing, OK 74023 Tele: (918) 225-0012 Fax: (918) 225-7197 [email protected] Attorneys for Michael and Kelly Lovin American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Tribunal Case Number: 01-24-0007-0365 Michael and Kelly Lovin, ) ) ) Claimants, ) ) -vs- ) ) Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc., ) Respondent. FINAL AWARD THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been duly designated in accordance with the arbitration agreement entered into by the Claimants and Respondent and having been duly sworn, and with this matter proceeding pursuant to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and the Expedited Procedures thereof, and having received the parties' proofs and having considered and carefully evaluated the contentions, arguments, statements, and submissions of the Claimants and the Respondent all presented at an evidentiary hearing conducted November 25, 2024, after due notice in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, whereupon the parties appeared and were represented by counsel, does hereby find and conclude as follows and enters the following Award: Hearing Attendees: For Claimant: Michael and Kelly Lovin Paul Hood, Esq. and Robert Winter, Esq. For Respondent: Doug Hoehn and Robert Nielson Sam P. Daniel, III, Esq. In this proceeding, Claimants seek $41,198.62 (as specified during the evidentiary hearing) in damages allegedly resulting from Respondent’s alleged failure to properly perform and complete Respondent’s obligations arising by virtue of a “Standard Swimming Pool Contract” by and between “Lovin Kelly & Michael” and Respondent, together with attorney fees and costs incurred in these proceedings. In support of its claim, Claimants presented: ■ The testimony of each Claimant. ■ Ten exhibits (and time and billing records pertinent to their attorney fee claim). Respondent presented: ■ The testimony of Respondent’s owner and of Respondent’s operations manager in charge of overseeing Respondent’s installation of in-ground pools. ■ One exhibit. Following Respondent’s installation of the in-ground pool which was the subject of the parties’ “Standard Swimming Pool Contract” (Exhibit 1-A), various disputes arose regarding the completed installation. The “Sink Hole” Claims The evidence was undisputed that following the installation, the pool developed at least one “sink hole” underneath the vinyl liner, which was remediated by Respondent. However, shortly thereafter, more sink holes developed. Claimants notified Respondent thereof on numerous occasions, but Respondent inexplicably never attempted remediation thereof, notwithstanding Respondent’s acknowledgment October 2, 2023, that three reported “basketball size holes in deep end” would be within the scope of Respondent’s “warranty work” and would be completed upon “the final payment.” See, Exhibit 7, page 5. Respondent subsequently acknowledged, October 2, 2023, that an $1,800 “final payment” issue had been resolved and that someone would be “getting a hold of you soon to schedule” the necessary remediation. See, Exhibit 7, page 5. Respondent had first been notified of the second round of sink holes as early as August 15, 2023. See, Exhibit 9, page 25. Inexplicably, following the October 2, 2023 commitment, it is undisputed that Respondent never again appeared at Claimants’ property and never remediated the problems it had committed to address. Claimants contend that their damages regarding this portion of their claim are in the sum of $28,200, the undisputed amount they paid upon “deck or liner installation, (whichever comes first)” together with $9,821.13, the amount of an estimate provided by another pool service company (Reliable Pool) to remediate the sink hole issues (with the caveat that the “full scope of damage to floor can not be determined until removal of Liner...”). See, Exhibit 5. The claim for $28,200 is rejected. The testimony was clear that this sum (payable as noted above) was simply a timing mechanism. Claimants demonstrated no relationship between this sum and their costs to complete Respondent’s warranty obligations. The only evidence presented as to actual cost to remediate the sink hole issues was the Reliable Pool Service estimate of $9,821.13. This portion of the claim is granted as damages sustained by Claimants by virtue of Respondent’s failure to remediate or address the problems it had committed to repair. The Sand Filter Claim The evidence was undisputed that the sand filter provided by Respondent leaked. Although Claimants notified Respondent of this fact, Respondent never responded or attempted to remediate the problem. Claimants paid to remediate this problem (for a new filter and replacement sand) and were damaged in the amount of the purchase price thereof in the total sum of $1,142.90. See, Exhibit 4. The Pump Claim The Claimants offered testimony that they were advised by another pool supply company that the pool pump provided by Respondent was undersized, by virtue of which they replaced the pump initially provided by Respondent and that the replacement cost $1,628.95. There was no evidence that Respondent was ever notified of this claim (before replacement) or that the pump provided by Respondent did not adequately service the pool. Respondent claimed that the pump it provided was appropriate. The evidence does not support this portion of Claimants' claim, which is denied. In summary, Claimants' claims are granted as follows: $ 9,821.00 (sink hole claim) $ 1,142.90 (sand filter claim) $10,963.90 TOTAL compensatory damages Attorney Fees and Costs Claimants' submitted time and billing records supporting an attorney fee claim of $8,268.00. In Oklahoma, the "award of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion." Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Preferred Packaging, Inc., 1996 OK 121, ¶32. "What constitutes a reasonable attorney fee is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court to be decided based on various factors." Silver Creek Investments, Inc. v. Whitten Construction Management, Inc. 2013 OK CIV APP 49, ¶10. The "fundamental determinant is reasonableness." Silver Creek Investments, Inc., ¶27. Further, there "is a strong presumption that the reasonable fee is the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate, i.e., the "lodestar" figure" U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Hill, 2023 OK 86, ¶12 (citations omitted, emphasis supplied). It is the determination of the undersigned that the attorney fees claimed by Claimants are reasonable, necessary, and the result of the rendition of competent, quality and timely legal services. This is the type of case wherein the prevailing party is entitled to the award of its reasonable attorney fees. The fees are authorized by 12 O.S. §939 (breach of express warranty). Here, Respondent acknowledged that the remedial work which it committed to perform (but did not do) was "warranty work." See, Claimants' Exhibit 7, page 5. Respondent claims there was no warranty. However, the parties contract states that Claimants' remedy "for the matters set forth herein" is "the repair of the defect." See, Exhibit 1A. As explained above, Respondent acknowledged this express "repair of the defect" obligation, but failed to perform it. Attorney fees are further authorized by 12 O.S. §936. See, Nayles v. Dodson, 2020 OK CIV APP 53 ("the transaction between the parties was centrally and primarily one relating to the purchase or sale of goods, and hence fee-bearing"). Therefore, Claimants are awarded their reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $8,268.00. Further, the administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association totaling $1,725.00 and the compensation of the Arbitrator totaling $1,350.00, shall be borne by Respondent. Therefore, Respondent shall be liable to reimburse Claimants the additional sum of $2,400.00, representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by Claimants, all per AAA R-49C and 12 O.S. §928. The net effect of this Award is, therefore, that Dolphin Pool & Supply, Inc. shall pay Claimants a total of $21,631,90. All sums awarded herein shall be paid within 10 days of the date of the entry hereof and, if not timely paid, shall thereafter accrue interest on the unpaid balance thereof at the Oklahoma statutory rate of post-judgment interest as may thereafter from time to time be in effect until paid. The foregoing constitutes the Arbitrator's Final Award. This Final Award resolves all claims submitted in this arbitration. Any claims not expressly granted herein are denied. It is the conclusion of the undersigned that these results are just, equitable and within the scope of the agreement of the parties. Dwight L. Smith, Arbitrator 12-2-94 (date signed)