Based on what could be observed, Wyatt performed concrete preparation, applied the initial epoxy/base layer, and broadcast the 1/4-inch flake. He finished at approximately 6:00 p.m. and told Katie’s mother, who was at the home, to leave the garage doors open until around dark and then close them for the night. Hoping for the best outcome, Ryan and Katie followed those instructions exactly.

Less than an hour after Wyatt left, stated the job was complete, and received final payment, Katie left a 5-star Google review for Wyatt’s company.

This review was left before the floor was dry or able to be walked on. At that time, the only possible inspection was from the driveway and from a distance. The floor could not be walked on, and the finer details, texture, sharpness, perimeter work, ledges, and finish defects could not yet be seen or evaluated.

Once the floor was dry enough to walk on and inspect closely on Thursday, April 23, the 5-star review was removed. Katie then contacted Wyatt by text message to explain that Ryan and Katie were not happy with the floor and believed there were serious defects.

After the surface cured and could be walked on, Katie reported that the floor was extremely hard, rough, and sharp enough to cut or scratch feet and hands. Additional problems were observed, including areas with little or no coating/flake coverage, masking and edge defects, rough perimeter work, inconsistent finish quality, and other visible installation problems.

The condition was not simply a cosmetic concern. The floor surface was sharp and abrasive during normal use, and the stem walls, ledges, and perimeter areas were especially rough and poorly finished.

Wyatt returned to inspect the garage. During that visit, he stated that the finish was how it was supposed to be and attributed the rough/sharp condition to the less expensive flake choice. He pointed out that Ryan had selected that flake/color option and stated that the installation was proper.

Ryan explained that while he did choose the color/flake option, Wyatt never explained that the selection would result in a floor that could not be comfortably walked on, could scratch or cut skin, or could not be cleaned normally. During the original color discussion, Wyatt only stated that smaller flake was more expensive, and Ryan said he wanted to keep the project cost on the lower end.

Wyatt then offered to “try” to improve the surface. When asked what that would include, the discussion indicated that the proposed work would mainly address the main floor. Wyatt said he could sand or grind down portions of the main floor to make it less sharp and then apply another clear topcoat. However, when Ryan and Katie asked about the stem walls and ledges, which were among the worst areas, Wyatt indicated that the suggested repair would not fully address those areas and that the stem walls and ledges would largely remain as-is.

Ryan and Katie became concerned because the stem walls and ledges were major parts of the problem. These areas were extremely sharp, unsafe, difficult or impossible to clean, and visibly poorly finished. The texture was so uneven, sharp, and rough that cleaning materials began shredding when used on the surface.

At that point, Ryan and Katie were apprehensive about paying more money for work that might not resolve the defects. Ryan stated he would be willing to pay the additional $700 only if Wyatt completed the additional work first and, after Ryan and Katie had a chance to inspect the result, the floor was substantially improved and they were satisfied overall. Ryan explained that if the additional work did not substantially improve the floor, paying another $700 would simply increase the cost of a project they were already unhappy with after paying nearly $3,500.

Wyatt did not agree to that condition. He wanted the additional $700 either way if he performed the additional work, because in his opinion the floor was acceptable as-is and any further work would be an added service at an added cost.

Ryan and Katie did not accept the proposed repair, but also did not permanently reject the possibility of Wyatt doing additional work. They told Wyatt they wanted time to think about it and would follow up later with a decision. Wyatt said that was fine.

Immediately after Wyatt left, Ryan and Katie began contacting other local epoxy coating companies. Ryan contacted a contractor who works with the builder of the home and installs epoxy floors for that builder.

That contractor came to inspect the floor the same day, Friday, April 24. He immediately described the installation as “a mess” and said it appeared very poorly executed. He pointed out multiple major defects, including:

• Excessively rough, abrasive, and sharp surface.
• Sharp flakes/ridges causing scratches or cuts to hands and feet during normal contact.
• Areas with little or no epoxy/flake coverage, exposing visible concrete.
• Inconsistent flake distribution and color variation from front to rear of the garage.
• Epoxy and flake applied directly onto brand-new finished trim boards with no apparent masking or protection.
• Unclean finish lines and poorly executed transitions.
• Jagged buildup around ledges and perimeter trim.
• Garage stairs discussed as part of the scope were not completed.
• Surface roughness so severe that normal cleaning materials tear apart during cleaning attempts, making the floor impractical or impossible to maintain.

This contractor said he would provide a quote to repair and complete the work Wyatt began. He explained there were two possible approaches with very different costs. He said he could attempt to repair Wyatt’s work, but warned that it would likely never look 100% correct or like it would have if properly installed from the beginning. To fully restore the garage, he said the coating on the entire floor, stem walls, and ledges would need to be completely ground off back to bare concrete and then redone. He also said the trim around the garage perimeter would likely need to be removed and replaced to restore a clean appearance around the edges.

As of April 30, 2026, this contractor had not yet provided the written estimate.

Ryan typed and sent a demand letter to Wyatt explaining the issues with the installation. The letter requested one of two resolutions:

• A full refund of $3,498.00.
• Payment for a qualified contractor to repair the garage, including correcting the floor, finishing the incomplete/defective work, and repairing damaged areas around the perimeter.

Ryan also typed and sent a letter to Keith, Wyatt’s father. Ryan did this because Keith referred Ryan to Wyatt in the first place, and because Ryan understood that Keith was helping Wyatt get established in business.

The letter to Keith was less formal/legal in tone than the demand letter sent to Wyatt, but it explained that Ryan and Katie were upset, that the finished result was unacceptable, and that they wanted the issue addressed. The condition Wyatt considered a final product was not acceptable for a $3,498 garage coating project.

After not receiving an estimate from the second contractor within five days, Ryan and Katie explored other options and contacted another local, reputable epoxy coating company.

That company came out the next day. They immediately stated that the job was not done correctly. They were surprised by the quality of the work in relation to the price paid and asked which company performed the installation.

This contractor identified the same general defects as the prior contractor and agreed that the surface was excessively sharp and capable of cutting skin. They also agreed that a properly installed epoxy floor, regardless of flake size, should not cut feet or hands and should not shred cleaning materials during normal cleaning.

This contractor also agreed that the stem walls and ledges were particularly bad and that correcting those areas would be more difficult than repairing the main floor alone. They stated that properly correcting the project would require serious corrective work across the main floor, stem walls, ledges, and the wooden trim boards adjacent to the ledges. Wyatt failed to mask or protect those areas before beginning the coating work and instead carried epoxy/flakes approximately 1 to 3 inches up the trim boards.

This was especially upsetting because every contractor Ryan spoke with and showed photos to agreed that the trim contamination and perimeter work were careless, sloppy, and unacceptable. The garage had been brand-new, freshly painted, and finished before the coating work, and the condition after installation made the overall project look unprofessional.

The third contractor provided a full proposal to correct and properly finish the main floor, stem walls, and ledges. The proposal also included removing the trim boards, sanding off the epoxy/flakes/coating, refinishing and painting the boards, and reinstalling them after the concrete repair. The contractor stated this may work if the trim can be removed cleanly; otherwise, Ryan and Katie may need to purchase and install new trim boards to replace what Wyatt coated with epoxy.

The proposal cost was $4,100. Had Wyatt completed the original $3,498 job correctly and professionally, this additional repair would not be necessary. Ryan and Katie are seeking a full refund of the $3,498 paid to Wyatt.

When Ryan and Katie first contacted this contractor, they explained that another contractor had completed the work only about a week earlier, that they did not believe it had been done correctly, and that they wanted a professional inspection. They also explained that they intended to seek their money back from the original installer and that the matter could eventually involve court. The contractor provided a written statement with their professional opinion, stating that the project was completed in an unprofessional manner, was not done correctly, and was not up to industry standards for an acceptable installation of this type.