Scott contracted with Brook Builders, Inc. that was owned by Steven, to remodel his house. Steven estimated that the remodeling would cost around $500,000. Eventually, however, Scott ends up paying Steven more than 1.3 million. Scott filed suit against Brook Builders, Inc. alleging breach of contract and fraud. During the trial, it was revealed that Brook Builders, Inc. had issued no shares of stock and that personal and corporate funds had been commingled. The minutes of the corporate meetings all looked exactly the same. In addition, Steven could not provide an accounting for the Scott project. In particular, Steven could not explain evidence of double and triple billing nor demonstrate that the amount Scott paid had actually been spent on the remodeling project.

Are these sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil? Why or why not?