A York County HVAC contractor has filed suit against Silfab Solar in the Court of Common Pleas, alleging the company failed to pay for diagnostic, repair, and materials work performed at its Fort Mill facility earlier this year.
Airtek of York County, Inc. filed the complaint on May 11, naming Silfab Solar Cells SC, Inc. and Silfab Solar PV SC, Inc. as defendants. The Rock Hill based contractor is seeking $31,846.68 in damages, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest, recoverable costs, and attorney’s fees.
According to the complaint, Airtek and Silfab entered into an agreement for HVAC and related diagnostic, repair, labor, and materials work at the Fort Mill facility. Airtek sent two invoices to Silfab in February. The first, dated Feb. 10, was for $429. The second, dated Feb. 24, was issued upon completion of additional work and totaled $31,417.68.
The complaint alleges that Silfab has failed and refused to pay the outstanding balance despite repeated demands, including a written demand for payment.
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Brian S. McCoy of the McCoy Law Firm, LLC in Rock Hill, raises three claims: breach of contract, account stated, and quantum meruit, also known as unjust enrichment. The breach of contract claim asserts that Airtek fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and that Silfab failed to pay. The account stated claim argues that the balance is clear and undisputed. The quantum meruit claim argues, in the alternative, that Silfab benefitted from the labor and materials provided and that it would be unjust for the company to retain that benefit without paying.
This is the second lawsuit filed by a York County contractor against Silfab Solar in roughly six weeks. On March 26, Rock Hill Industrial Piping and Fabrication, Inc. filed a complaint in the same court alleging Silfab owed nearly $80,000 for piping work performed at the Fort Mill site beginning in September 2025. Court records show that case was dismissed on April 16. The McCoy Law Firm represented the plaintiff in that matter as well.
Silfab Solar has 30 days from the date of service to file an answer to the summons. If the company fails to respond within that window, the court may enter a default judgment in favor of Airtek for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Silfab Solar has not yet filed a response in the Airtek case.
Sources: Court of Common Pleas, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, York County, Case No. 2026CP4601591
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
