The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 455.228, 489.127(1)(a) and (f), 489.129(1), (h), (m) and , and 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed in accordance with Florida Administrative Rule 61G4-17.001. 2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating contractors in the state. Respondent is not licensed as a general contractor and is not the qualifying agent for Freeman Associates ("Freeman"). In April 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with Charles and Lenore Brunty to renovate the Brunty residence located at 1301 Kanab Avenue North West, Palm Bay, Florida. The contract price for the renovation was $48,494.86. Respondent provided the Bruntys with a written estimate of cost. The written estimate bears the headings, "Freeman Associates," "General Contracting," and "Property Improvements." It describes the type of work to be performed and separate costs for "Roofing," "Exterior Paint," "Exterior Windows/Screens," "Interior Woodwork," "Interior Cabinets," "Plumbing," "Electrical," "Air Conditioning/Hearing," "Interior Paint," "Flooring," and "Addition-Kitchen, Breakfast, Bath." Respondent represented to the Bruntys that he would oversee or supervise all of the renovations to their residence and would provide all permits. The contract states: Any and all work requiring permits shall be obtained by me and/or subcontractors prior to starting of any work on this project. Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Respondent obtained bids from subcontractors, oversaw their work, and charged the Bruntys for the work performed by the subcontractors. Respondent agreed to begin work on June 12, 1995. However, he performed no work before July 21, 1995. The work performed by Respondent did not comply with industry standards. Respondent removed the roof without providing adequate protection for the interior of the home. The weather damaged the ceilings and the Mexican tile. The ceilings had to be replaced by the Bruntys. The Mexican tile has not been replaced because of cost. On September 9, 1995, the Bruntys cancelled the contract. On September 19, 1995, Respondent presented a bill to the Bruntys for $16,826.38. The Bruntys telephoned the suppliers and discovered that Respondent had not paid the suppliers. The tile supplier's invoice was altered. The price had been exaggerated by $2,120, or more than 100 percent. The Bruntys refused to release any funds to Respondent until Respondent provided a full accounting. On October 6, 1995, Respondent filed a mechanic's lien against the Brunty property for $16,826.38. Thereafter, Respondent filed a second lien for $34,835.33. Respondent certified in the liens that he had paid for materials and performed all work. However, the two liens overstate the work performed and the cost of materials. Respondent in fact failed to pay all liens. The combined total of the two liens exceeds the contract price by $3,166.85. Respondent did not complete the renovations to the Brunty property and is not entitled to full payment of the contract price. The liens caused the lender to withhold construction funds for the renovations until the matter was resolved in civil court. In the interim, the Bruntys paid materials, subcontractors, and legal fees out of their own funds. In May 1995, Respondent acted as a general contractor in a second transaction. Respondent contracted with Mr. Curt Iffinger, a licensed air conditioning contractor, to install an air conditioning system at the home of Mr. Albert Bresch located at 4149 Sherwood Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida. Respondent represented to Mr. Iffinger that Respondent was a general contractor. Mr. Bresch paid Respondent for the installation. Mr. Iffinger performed the required installation. Respondent refused to pay Mr. Iffinger. Mr. Iffinger filed a mechanic's lien against the Bresch property. Respondent failed to cause the lien to be removed within 75 days and executed an affidavit stating that all liens were paid in full.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 455.228, 489.127(1)(a) and (f), 489.129(1), (h), (m) and (o), and 489.531(1)(a) and imposing an administrative fine of $8,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7C-1.04 as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and that a $200 fine be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Billy M. Arzie Arzie Apartments 710 North 2nd Avenue Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue involved herein is whether or not the Respondent 2/ guilty of violations set forth hereinafter in detail as stated in the Second Amended Notice to Show Cause filed by Petitioner herein. If so, the secondary issue is what penalty, if any, should be assessed for such violations. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary-evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact Robert C. Beiter, Sr. is the trustee and legal owner of the subject premises. On July 24, 1981, Petitioner, through its sanitarian, Richard Bragg, made an inspection of the subject premises situated at 715 Northwest Sixth Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The premises is a public lodging establishment and is licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants under license No. 16- 5268H. During the inspection by Mr. Bragg, the following violations were observed: Fire extinguishers were overdue for service as indicated by the pressure gauges thereon and/or by the lack of service tags thereon. The general condition of the building was run down, paint was peeling from the walls, windows and doors were broken, the roof was leaking, and window screens were missing. A severe infestation of rodents and roaches existed on the premises. Papers and assorted trash were located around the building. There were no outside garbage containers furnished for the building, which contains six apartment units with kitchen/cooking facilities in each apartment. Stairways and walkways were not well lighted and the handrails on the stairways and walkways were loose. Electrical fixtures did not all have covers and were not all in working order. Plumbing fixtures in several apartments were leaking. (Testimony of Richard Bragg, an inspector employed by the Petitioner for approxi- mately 14 years and who has approximately 25 years in the hotel/restaurant business.) Mr. Bragg made subsequent inspections of these premises in September and October, 1981, and the same conditions were in existence, except that an outside garbage container had been provided. A subsequent inspection of the premises was made by Mr. Bragg on November 11, 1981, and the original conditions existed, except for the provision of the garbage container. On December 12, 1982, Mr. Bragg found no evidence of correction of the remaining problems since his November 11, 1981 inspection. Finally, on February 18, 1982, Mr. Bragg observed all of the original cited problems as existed on July 24, 1981, except for those relating to furnishing a garbage container. Mr. Bragg was unable to check the condition of the plumbing and the electrical fixtures due to the lack of access to the apartments on February 18, 1982. Respondent tendered extensive documentary evidence consisting of receipts for various repairs made to the subject premises, including plumbing, roofing, window and screen repairs; extermination for pest control and trash services. Respondent's agent, Harry A. Wright, had the fire extinguishers inspected and replaced on an annual basis. All of the documentary evidence submitted respecting expenditures were for repairs subsequent to the date of Mr. Bragg's initial inspection on July 24, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $100 for each of the eight conditions for the subject premises found herein to be violations of the rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, with the exception that it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent only be assessed a civil penalty of $50 for the violation found above relating to outside garbage containers due to the effective and corrective action taken by the Respondent to correct said deficiency. Accordingly, the total amount of the civil penalty is $750. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay the above amount of $750 within thirty (30) days of the date the Petitioner enters its final order, which funds shall be made payable to the order of the Treasurer of the State of Florida for credit to the Hotel and Restaurant Trust Fund. It is further RECOMMENDED that if the Respondent fails to remit such civil penalty to the Petitioner within such period, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants' license No. 16-5268H for the Pinewood International Apartments located at 715 Northwest Sixth Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida shall be suspended for twelve (12) months or until reinstated for good cause by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1983. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1983.
Findings Of Fact James Paleveda, one of the Petitioners, took the examination for a plumbing contractor's license on February 10 and 11, 1983, and failed the examination. He was the only witness to testify on behalf of the Petitioners. Some of the other Petitioners took a different examination on different dates than the examination complained of in these proceedings, but no evidence was presented identifying those Petitioners and no evidence was presented relative to those exams. Petitioners presented no evidence that any or all of them gave incorrect answers to the questions complained of, and, but for those incorrect answers, they would have passed the examination. The sum and substance of the testimony presented by the Petitioner Paleveda was that, in his opinion, most of the questions in Exhibit 1, the examination Paleveda took, were not appropriate to determine if the applicant is qualified to be a plumbing contractor. Paleveda has never been a plumbing contractor and has little experience in the contracting field. He is also nearly 57 years old and, although fit, conceded the long examination for a man his age and background was much more tiring than it would be for a younger man fresh out of school. Questions 1 through 27 of Exhibit 1 deal with social security taxes withheld and paid by employers for their employees; federal income taxes withheld; Florida mechanics lien law; workers' compensation law; unemployment compensation law; Florida Construction Industry Licensing law; accounting and cost-keeping procedures; and general contract provisions. Petitioners contend that although some knowledge of these subjects is desirable, a contractor can always hire accountants and lawyers to handle these problems. Respondent, on the other hand, presented the testimony of plumbing contractors who have been in the business for many years who testified that knowledge of the cost of social security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, contract provisions, and all costs associated with the performance of plumbing contracts are essential if a plumbing contractor is to remain solvent. This latter testimony is deemed more credible and is factually accepted. Questions 28 through 93 generally involve questions form the Plumbers Handbook and Mathematics for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Petitioner's primary objections to these questions are that in some cases the answers from the Plumbers Handbook is different from the local codes. Respondent presented evidence that there are some differences throughout the state in the plumbing codes and this is the principal reason for utilizing a standard that can be applicable to all candidates. The candidates are told that the correct answers to those questions are those given in the Plumbers Handbook and the examinees are allowed to have this book in the examination room. Questions 94 through 100 are taken from the Solar Water and Pool Heating Manual and Petitioners contend these questions are too hard. Petitioners further contend that any plumber should check with the manufacturer for specific instructions before installing a solar water heating system. All plumbing contractors are authorized to install a solar water hearing system and each should be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of such a system before being so licensed. Accordingly, Petitioner's objections to these questions are without merit. The first 27 questions to which the Petitioners object are very similar to the questions given to all building contractors for a statewide license. Those questions cover areas that a contractor must know to remain financially solvent. Most contractors initially starting a business do not have sufficient capital to hire attorneys and accountants to advise each time a question arises regarding these fields. A contractor can hardly afford to hire an attorney to file a $200 mechanics lien.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the COMPLAINT and other contentions of Petitioners regarding the unfairness of the February 11 and 12, 1983 examination for plumbing contractors be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Steinberg, Esquire 2055 Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33609 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 199 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reason alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent acknowledges the accuracy of the allegations in the first seven paragraphs of the administrative complaint, including the allegation that he holds a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR C027268. He has been licensed in Florida continuously since October of 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On August 14, 1986, respondent Stratton, doing business as Stratton Construction Company, executed a written contract with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street in Jacksonville, Florida. He had actually begun work nine days earlier. The contract contemplated installation of a pier under an unsupported sill end, replacement of 17 windows and two doors, hanging a screen door and a storm door, shortening and capping the chimney, adding a roof over the front stoop, reshingling the entire roof, painting the outside of the house, and putting hose bibbs in the front and the rear of the house. In addition, the contract called for extensive work inside the house, replacement of sheetrock, installation of insulation, congoleum, carpeting, paneling, cabinets, new kitchen and bedroom appliances, a new central heating system, and numerous other improvements and repairs. The contract price totalled $18,600, including $2,071 for a utility room. ("Remove back porch and drop flooring to allow enough height to construct 8 foot by 8 foot utility room ... inside walls unfinished ...") Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Exclusive of plumbing, electrical, heating, and the utility room, the value of the repairs and renovations exceeded $200.00. As "Stratton Const." respondent contracted with Williams Plumbing Co., Inc. (Williams) on September 8, 1986, to re-pipe, install a working machine drain and furnish a water closet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Respondent or Williams on his behalf obtained a plumbing permit from the City of Jacksonville, No. 25997, at or about the time Williams began work, but Williams "left town" (T.43) before the project was inspected by the City. On October 2, 1986, respondent contracted with Wayne Conn Plumbing (Conn) to do additional plumbing work. In order to obtain a plumbing permit for the additional work, respondent cancelled the first permit. (T.34) The same day he signed the contract with Conn, respondent obtained a second plumbing permit, No. 28215. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Conn finished the plumbing work, and it passed inspection by the City. Earlier, on September 5, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a City permit authorizing electrical work at 5017 Pearl Street. On October 8, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a mechanical permit for the house's new heating system. In due course, the work authorized by these permits passed City inspections. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before he began work on the Cobb's house, Mr. Stratton had only built new homes in Florida. He was unaware of any requirement to obtain a permit to effect repairs to the interior of a house other than those he did in fact obtain. He was aware, however, of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room, involving, as it did, alterations to the foundation. Nevertheless, he only applied for this permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed, and after he had become embroiled in a dispute with the Cobbs. Jacksonville's Building Code, Part 4, makes it unlawful to begin work to contract, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish a building or structure, or a part thereof ... without having first filed an application with and obtained a permit therefor from the Building official, except that, for general maintenance or repairs, not involving replacement of components specifically requiring permits, which do not change the occupancy or affect the electrical, plumbing or mechanical systems, the value of which does not exceed two hundred dollars ... no permit shall be required ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 5. In beginning work without a permit to remove the back porch or to replace it with a utility room or to effect general repairs the value of which exceeded two hundred dollars, respondent violated applicable provisions of a local building code. The evidence suggested that the requirement that contractors obtain permits to effect general repairs with a value in excess of two hundred dollars is more honored in the breach than in the observance. In fact, respondent testified that somebody told him no permit is needed "if you don't change the size of the building," (T.46) i.e., alter the foundation. The Building Code also calls for mandatory inspections of foundations and framing as they are completed, but a building inspector testified that inspection of pre-formed concrete piers like those on which the utility room stands would have been foregone. Because the addition stood on (new) piers and because its interior walls remained unfinished, it was possible for the City to inspect both the foundation and the framing, even after the work was finished. John Carlton Sturdevant, a field inspector for Jacksonville's Building and Zoning Department, saw nothing wrong with the framing, nor was there evidence of any problem with the foundation.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether engaging in air conditioning contracting regulated by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board pursuant to Section 489.500 et seq. Part II, Florida Statutes, constitutes exceeding the scope of one's license as an electrical contractor, (2) whether performing air conditioning contracting in the name of "Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning" constitutes operating in a name other than the name his electrical contracting license is issued in, contrary to Subsection 489.533(1)(l), and (3) whether Respondent willfully violated the building codes by venting the heater improperly, failing to get a permit and get work inspected.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing was given to Respondent at Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. Arnold Dixon is and has been at all times material to this case a registered electrical contractor, license number ER0004417. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) He has maintained his address of record as Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. (T-Pg. 6) He has held such license since 1976. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) Arnold Dixon does not hold a license, a state registration or certification to engage in contracting as a heating or air conditioning contractor. (Pet. Ex. 4 & 6) Arnold Dixon does hold a Nassau County Occupational License as an electrical contractor and as a heating and air conditioning contractor. No check of local records was conducted to see if he had a local license as an air conditioning contractor. (T-Pg. 22) On or about June 1985, the Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, contracted to install an air conditioning and heating unit at the home of John Williams for a contract price of $1985. (Pet. Ex. 5 and T-Pgs. 10 & 11) The work on this contract was done by David Everett, who negotiated the contract. The Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, did not obtain a permit to perform the work at the Williams' residence. Inspections on the Williams' job were not called for by Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning. Permits and inspections were required by the applicable building code. (T-Pgs. 25 & 26) Entering into a contract to perform air conditioning and heating work and performing such work is air conditioning contracting, which is regulated under Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. After installation by Dixon's Hearing and Air Conditioning, the Williams' heating system generated carbon monoxide when operating because there was insufficient fresh air being provided to the unit. Because the air intake was in a closet which restricted the air supply to the hot air handling system, the air handling unit sucked fumes from the exhaust side of the unit back through the unit's combustion chamber and circulated it through the house. The longer the unit ran, the more debris was trapped in the louvered door of the closet and the more combustion gases were pulled through the combustion chamber and distributed through the house by the air handling unit. (T-Pg. 34) According to the manufacturer's representative, the hot air return is required to be ducted into the unit. In this case, the return air was pulled from inside a closet which had louvered doors. No duct was used and this installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Although the unit as installed was unsafe and had the potential to kill, no evidence was received that failure to install the unit in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was a violation of local building code. (T-Pgs. 34- 38) Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did not hold itself out to be and was not engaged in electrical contracting in fulfilling the Williams' contract. Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did hold itself out to be an air conditioning contractor and the work performed in fulfilling the Williams' contract was air conditioning contracting.
