LITTLE ROCK — A Pulaski County tree service has been ordered to pay $470,000 following a civil trial involving its business practices after severe weather in Arkansas in 2023 and 2024.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Cathleen Compton entered the judgment against Capital City Tree Service on Aug. 24. The penalty was based on 47 violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act at the maximum statutory penalty of $10,000 per violation.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin filed the lawsuit against the company and three of its owners in February 2025. The state alleged that Capital City told consumers it would work with their homeowners’ insurance companies and that they would have no out-of-pocket costs. According to Griffin, the company later pursued consumers for balances their insurance carriers did not pay and filed liens against their properties.
At trial, the jury found Capital City Tree Service liable on one claim involving unconscionable business practices. According to Compton’s post-trial order, the jury did not specify which act or acts it considered unconscionable.
The jury ruled in favor of Charles and Matthew Shaw individually. Compton had previously directed a verdict in favor of Janet Shaw. The jury did not find that Capital City or the individual defendants targeted elderly consumers, engaged in price gouging, committed unfair business practices, made false representations or used bait-and-switch tactics.
In addition to the financial penalty, Compton ordered Capital City to revise its contracts. The new language must explain that the company can submit a claim to a homeowner’s insurance carrier but cannot control the carrier’s decision. The contracts must also clearly state that consumers are responsible for expenses not paid by insurance.
Editor’s note: This article has been corrected. An earlier version incorrectly connected Capital City Tree Service to the March 2023 Wynne tornado. The sources used for the article did not support that statement. The article also incorrectly attributed the finding of 47 violations to the jury. The jury found the company liable for unconscionable business practices; the court subsequently based its $470,000 civil penalty on 47 consumer transactions. A full correction is available here.
