The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor and a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CC C027427 and CB C023123. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, MCI was a corporation engaged in roofing contracting, and Respondent was its qualifying agent. A re-roofing job by MCI on the shared roof of two townhouses located at 105 and 106 Woodland Road, the Village of Palm Springs, Florida (the Village), is at issue in this proceeding. These two townhouses are part of a building consisting of four townhouses. All four townhouses have a shared roof. Essentially, the work by MCI was to re-roof half of the entire roof. At the times material to this proceeding Lawrence Gauer owned the townhouse at 105 Woodland Road (Gauer townhouse) and RCM owned the townhouse at 106 Woodland Road (RCM townhouse). Both townhouses are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Village. Mr. Malt, Respondent's brother, owns RCM. Mr. Malt is a certified general contractor, developer, and real estate broker. Mr. Malt has extensive experience building townhouses, having built over 4,000 dwelling units, including the townhouses where the work at issue in this proceeding occurred. Mr. Malt also owns the company that manufactured the engineered pre-stressed concrete structural members that served as the foundation for the roof at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Malt is not a licensed roofing contractor, and his general contractor’s license does not authorize him to perform roofing work. In the fall of 1998, Mr. Malt determined that the RCM townhouse should be re-roofed. Mr. Malt contacted the owners of the other three townhouses to determine whether they wanted to re-roof their portions of the shared roof. Mr. Gauer decided to have his part of the shared roof re-roofed with Mr. Malt, but the owners of the other two townhouses declined. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent authorized Mr. Malt to act as an agent for MCI. On January 7, 1999, MCI contracted with Mr. Gauer and with RCM to perform the work at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Gauer signed the contract in his capacity as owner of his townhouse. Mr. Malt signed the contract on behalf of RCM as owner of its townhouse. Mr. Malt also signed the contract on behalf of MCI in his capacity as its agent. The total amount of the contract was $5,000, with each owner (Mr. Gauer and RCM) being responsible for payment of $2,500. The contract required each owner to pay $1,250 upon execution of the contract with the balance due within five days ". . . of completion (inspection by the Village . . .)". On or about January 7, 1999, Mr. Gauer paid $1,850 to MCI. There was no explanation as to why Mr. Gauer paid more than the contract required on that date. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract, and the contract did not contain a written statement explaining the rights of consumers under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On January 13, 1999, Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, applied to the Village for the requisite building permits for the subject work. On January 13, 1999, the Village issued two separate permits, one for each townhouse, authorizing the re- roofing work contemplated by the subject contract. Each permit reflected that the valuation of the work was $2,500. Consistent with the applicable building code, the Village's building department issued a notice with each permit that because the roof was flat, the roof had to provide positive drainage to prevent the ponding of water or the roof had to be constructed of specific water retaining material. Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, hired the crew that performed the roofing work at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Malt supervised the roofing crew that worked on the two townhouses. Prior to beginning work on the roof, Mr. Malt checked weather forecasts for the area. On January 13, 1999, the roofing crew removed the existing roofing material from the roof. At the end of the workday, the crew covered the exposed roof with plastic sheeting commonly referred to as Visqueen. For a flat roof, the accepted standard in the roofing industry is to remove only as much roofing material as can be replaced with finished roofing material the same day. A plastic sheeting such as Visqueen is inadequate to protect an exposed flat roof from a heavy rainfall. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof on January 13, 1999, constituted negligence. On the night of January 13, 1999, an unexpected heavy rainfall event occurred. As a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing extensive damage. The work crew spent most of January 14, 1999, cleaning up following the rain event the previous day. As of Friday, January 15, 1999, the roof was still exposed. On that date, MCI installed a base coat of hot asphalt and insulation, which was inadequate to waterproof the flat roof. At the end of the workday, the roofing crew covered the roof with Visqueen and left for the weekend. On January 16, 1999, additional heavy rains occurred. Again, as a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing additional damage to both townhouses. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof constituted negligence. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance company paid his policy limits for emergency services and repairs to his townhouse. The repairs were completed on or about February 19, 1999. Mr. Gauer subrogated his rights against MCI to his insurance company. There was a civil action pending by the insurance company against MCI at the time of the final hearing based on the subrogation rights. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance did not cover damages to his or Mr. Poitivent's personal property. The value of those losses was not established. During the week beginning January 18, 1999, MCI installed new roofing material on the roof. In doing so, the roofing crew covered the clothes dryer vent for each townhouse with roofing material. As a result, Mr. Gauer's clothes dryer did not vent properly, and he paid an independent contractor $250.00 to inspect and clean out the dryer vent. MCI promptly corrected the deficient work after Mr. Gauer told Mr. Malt that his dryer vent had been covered during the re-roofing. The accepted standard in the roofing industry is that roof vents are not to be covered over without some specific instruction to do so. MCI's failure to adhere to that standard constituted negligence. MCI asserted that it completed the roofing work in 1999. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Craig Johns was a building inspector for the Village. Mr. Johns inspected the subject roof on the following dates in 1999: June 15, July 15, August 12, and August 30. Following each inspection, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not pass inspection. Among other deficiencies, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not provide positive drainage, which was required for a flat roof covered in asphalt. 2/ As of the final hearing, MCI had not obtained a passing final inspection from the Village's building department. Mr. Malt established that Respondent had just cause to believe that MCI had completed all work on the project in 1999. Consequently, Respondent is not guilty of abandoning the work within the meaning of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997). As of June 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, totaled $794.23. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, and VI of the Administrative Complaint. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count I is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count II is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count V is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count VI is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay Mr. Gauer restitution in the amount of $250. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay investigative costs in the amount of $794.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the positions of the parties, I hereby make the following: Thomas G. Walker (herein sometimes called "Licensee" or "Respondent") is a registered residential contractor and is issued license number RR 0009839. Thomas G. Walker was initially licensed by the Board in July of 1969 as an individual and during January, 1975, he changed his registration status as an individual to qualify Insulshield Roofing as the business entity through which he would conduct his business (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). An examination of the official records pertaining to the Licensee reveals that he does not now nor has he ever held a roofing license in the State of Florida. On February 16, 1979, the Licensee was apprehended contracting roofing without a State roofing contractor's license by the Board's representative and was issued a Notice of Violation (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). On July 26, 1977, the Licensee entered into an agreement with Jan Soderstrom, 501 Orlando Avenue, Indialantic, Florida, to remove the tile from the Florida Room of her residence and hot mop the herein-described roofing area, to replace tile as needed, to clean and coat the entire roof, and to install a cap over Ms. Soderstrom's chimney. He guaranteed the work for a period of five (5) years and charged a contracted price of $800.00. The Licensee was paid the contracted price of $800.00 by check dated August 4, 1977 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). During early February, 1978, Ms. Soderstrom detected a leak in her roof and summoned the Licensee back to her residence to repair same. During February, 1978, Respondent returned to Ms. Soderstrom's residence to repair the leak in her roof. Upon his return, he removed several roof tiles and since February, 1978, to the present, he has not returned to this project. Clyde Pirtle, a field investigator for the Board, investigated the Licensee based on complaints that he received from Ms. Soderstrom and from a Mr. Capitz. On or about February 16, 1977, Mr. Pirtle discussed a Notice of Violation with the Licensee and explained to him the necessity to register as a Roofing Contractor, if he was in the business of acting as a Roofing Contractor. Mr. Charles D. Franklin, a building official of Indian Harbor Beach, Florida, is the custodian of the records in Indian Harbor, Florida. Based on an examination of the records by Mr. Franklin, the Respondent/Licensee is not registered as a Roofing Contractor locally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the registered residential contractor's license, number 0009839, of the Licensee, Thomas G. Walker, d/b/a Insulshield Roofing, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Thomas G. Walker d/b/a Insulshield Roofing 170 5th Street South Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. Since January, 1982, he has been the qualifying agent for Tropical Clima-Coat Inc. (Tropical). On September 21, 1983, Tropical entered into a written contract with Bertha Guerry and her husband Joseph, in which it agreed, for $2,449.10, to perform the following roofing work on the Guerrys' residence, which was located at 2185 S.W. 38th Street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Remove loose gravel and dirt from existing roof surface/flat deck. Apply Tropical Clima-Coat's resin- based cement to fill holes and cracks in the roof surface. Apply acrylic primer to provide maximum adhesion for acrylic waterproofing. Apply acrylic waterproofing, creating a uniform, bonded, elastomeric, watertight surface. Apply White Acrylic Roof Finish as a durable, mildew-resistant wear barrier. The contract further provided that the Guerrys were to receive a "5 year, 100% warranty against leaks." The work specified in the contract was completed on October 31, 1983, and the Guerrys thereupon paid Tropical in full. Tropical, in turn, gave the Guerrys a written warranty signed by its Vice-President, which provided, in part, as follows: If within 5 years after Tropical Clima- Coat applies its Roof System to your roof, a leak develops because of the failure of our roofing system,* we will repair it free. * Damage excluded from warranty: Tropical Clima-Coat shall not be liable for any leaks or damage caused by riots or vandalism, termites or other insects, penetration of the roof or waterproofing system by nails; nor shall Tropical Clima-Coat be liable for leaks or damage caused by acts of God, including but not limited to: lightening, gale, hurricane, tornado, hailstorm, flood, earthquake, or unusual phenomena of the elements; nor from damage to roof due to settlement, distortion, dry rot, failure or cracking of the roof deck, walls, partitions, or foundation of the structure; nor defects or failure of materials used as a roof base, over which our waterproofing system is applied; nor by biological growth, traffic upon the roof or any similar cause. The warranty also contained the following provision prescribing the time and manner in which claims under the warranty had to be made: The owner of the roof will notify Tropical Clima-Coat immediately by certified mail, at its main office (3746 N.W. 16th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311) of any leaks alleged to result from causes not excluded from coverage by this warranty. Such notification must be mailed within 30 days of discovery of the need for repairs, and all correspondence must include the above Certificate Number. In June, 1986, Mrs. Guerry noticed that there was a leak in her roof above the living room. She telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair the leak in accordance with the warranty she and her husband had been given. Tropical responded promptly to Mrs. Guerry's request. It sent one of its workers to the Guerry residence and he patched the leak. Arrangements were made for the worker to return to the Guerry residence and pressure clean the roof. Pursuant to these arrangements, the worker came back to the residence and pressure cleaned the roof as he had promised. It took him two hours to complete the task. Following the pressure cleaning of the roof, Mrs. Guerry discovered that there were now leaks in the roof above the kitchen. Having made this discovery, she again telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair these newly-discovered leaks. As it had done in response to her previous telephonic request, Tropical dispatched a worker to the Guerry residence, albeit not as promptly as on the prior occasion. The worker applied black ceramic granules to the surface of the roof in an attempt to alleviate the problem. The Guerrys now had a black roof instead of the white roof for which they had contracted. Mrs. Guerry again telephoned Tropical and complained about the new color of her roof. Tropical responded by having a worker go to the Guerry residence and spray paint the roof white. The paint, however, did not adhere well to the granular material on the roof. Furthermore, Mrs. Guerry observed new leaks in the roof. On September 8, 1986, she telephoned Tropical to advise it of these recent developments. Respondent visited the Guerry residence the next day. He told Mrs. Guerry that Tropical intended to remove the granules and recoat the roof with an asphalt material imbedded with a polyester fabric for greater strength to prevent against leaks. He further assured her that, upon completion of the repair work, the roof would be white. On September 15, 1986, a crew of Tropical workers were on the Guerrys' roof with approximately 80 to 100 gallons of asphalt when a sudden, unexpected heavy rainstorm interrupted their work. The rainwater mixed with the asphalt and created "black goo," some of which fell from the roof onto the sides of the house, the porch, the driveway, the sidewalks, the grass, the bushes, and the trees. Tropical had its workers endeavor to clean up the mess that the rainstorm had created. They used mineral spirits in an attempt to remove the hardened remains of the "black goo" from the porch, the driveway and the sidewalks and swept the residue onto the grass, bushes and trees. In so doing, they contaminated the soil and killed the vegetation. Respondent was responsible for the decision to use mineral spirits in the cleanup effort. He did not realize, as he should have, that the use of this substance would result in environmental damage. The cleanup progressed slowly. Frustrated by the lack of substantial progress, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent and demanded that he go to her home and do something about the situation. Respondent did not believe that his presence at the home would help matters any and he told Mrs. Guerry so. Nonetheless, on September 17, 1986, he paid his final visit to the Guerry residence. During his visit, Respondent met with Mrs. Guerry for approximately an hour and a half. Mrs. Guerry expressed to Respondent her outrage concerning the situation. Respondent recognized that Mrs. Guerry had a right to be annoyed and that Tropical needed to take action to remedy her plight. He wrote down on a piece of paper the following things that Tropical would do for the Guerrys: FIX ROOF LOOSEN SOIL W/RAKE 4. REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK 3. REMOVE BLACK FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE REMOVE STICKINESS FROM DECORATIVE WALL (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE STICKINESS FROM SIDEWALKING STONES REMOVE BLACK FROM CHAT @ BACK DOOR SOD- TO BE DETERMINED LATER Respondent indicated he would sign this document and he asked Mrs. Guerry to do the same to acknowledge their understanding and agreement as to the remedial action Tropical was to take. Mrs. Guerry refused. Nonetheless, the cleanup effort continued. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not permit Tropical to continue its repair work on the roof. Concerned about the damage that had been done to the vegetation on her property, Mrs. Guerry contacted a horticultural consultant, Robert G. Haelhle. Haelhle surveyed the property on September 18, 1986. Following his survey he wrote a letter to the Guerrys advising them of the following: On September 18, 1986, I visited the Guerry property at Mrs. Guerry's request. The landscape plantings are in real trouble due to a mineral spirits spill. Mineral spirits and water were used to clean up roofing tar that washed off the roof after a heavy rainstorm. The kerosene [sic] and water mixture washed over the lawn, around the base of a West Indian Cherry tree (very rare), an arborvitae, and a 165 foot Ixora hedge on the east and west sides of the house. The Ixora hedge is over 7 feet tall and 30 years old and would not be replaceable. The mineral spirits/water mix will poison the soil and eventually could affect the water table. All affected soil will have to be removed from the area before any new planting can be accomplished. The West Indian Cherry was starting to yellow and the grass was dying at the time of my visit. Time is of the essence to preserve the remaining plantings. The kerosene [sic]/water mix poisons the root system of the plants and does not allow for normal water penetration. I am not optimistic about the remaining plantings. I contacted Jane McCarthy of the Environmental Quality Board, tel: 765- 5881. She was to send an inspector to assess the soil damage at the site. Neither Tropical nor Respondent replaced the "plantings" that had been damaged or destroyed as a result of the cleanup effort. On September 22, 1989, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent. She reiterated that she did not want any work done on the roof until she had an independent expert inspect it and provide her with guidance. That same day, Edward T. Weiner, a licensed architect hired by the Guerrys, inspected their roof. Based on his observations of the condition of the roof, it was Weiner's opinion that the repair work done by Tropical was unacceptable and that a new roof needed to be installed. He so advised the Guerrys by letter dated September 29, 1986. The Guerrys also hired an attorney, Craig W. Lekach, to furnish them legal advice and representation concerning their dealings with Tropical. On September 23, 1986, Lekach telephoned Respondent and instructed him to "get busy" with the repair work that needed to be done. The following day, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Guerry and told her that he was anxious to complete the repair work on her roof. Mrs. Guerry took the opportunity to again express her displeasure with the work Tropical had done. She also indicated that she had yet to hear from Weiner regarding his assessment of the condition of the roof. That same day, September 24, 1986, Respondent received word that a Broward County Environmental Compliance Officer had inspected the Guerrys' property and determined that mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort had contaminated soil on the property. Respondent was further informed that the excavation of the contaminated soil would remedy the situation. Having received permission from the Guerrys' attorney to proceed with the repair work, Respondent sent a crew to the Guerry residence on September 25, 1986, to vent the roof. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not allow the workers to install the vents. Another telephone conversation between Mrs. Guerry and Respondent ensued. Respondent reiterated that it was his desire to finish the work that needed to be done on the roof. Mrs. Guerry, in turn, indicated that she would not let Tropical continue its work on the roof until she had Weiner's report in hand and had the opportunity to further discuss the matter with her attorney, her son and others with whom she had consulted. The conversation ended with Respondent telling Mrs. Guerry that he would be waiting to hear from her. On September 26, 1989, Respondent wrote a letter to Attorney Lekach in which he complained that Mrs. Guerry was interfering with Tropical's efforts to make her whole. The letter read, in part, as follows: We do carry casualty insurance and I feel it may be best to supply you with the name and address of our agent and allow him to coordinate with Mrs. Guerry's homeowners agent. Truly, this situation is considered an "act of God" and I do not believe that we can adequately communicate with the customer as she is in such an excited state we now find her implacable. We would be glad to install the proper roof vents and do the final painting of her roof if she will permit us. If she will not, then we must close the file and direct her to our insurance company. This is really unfortunate! Sound roofing practices were utilized; we were careful to watch the weather and, although we had a sudden cloudburst, we did stay around to try to clean up. We have not been negligent and we have spent considerable time and money to resolve the situation. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Respondent next heard from Lekach on October 9, 1986. Later that same day, pursuant to Lekach's request, Respondent met with Lekach and discussed "the problems at the Guerry residence." The following day, Lekach sent Respondent a letter memorializing the highlights of their discussion. The letter provided, in part, as follows: You will be permitted access to the Guerry property for the following purposes: Inspection of the roof, cleaning of the yard which will include replacement of sod as necessary, replacement of topsoil as necessary, and removal of tar. The performance of the above shall neither be construed as an admission of liability on your part, nor an acceptance of this work as being satisfactory or complete. I agree, however, that it is imperative that steps be taken immediately to mitigate the damage. Further we will both be doing the following: obtain information about repair methods and costs for chattahoochee surface. obtain information about repair methods for the "staining" problem on walls and patio so that the area can be painted. review proposals for correction or replacement of roof, if necessary. There is going to have to be a certain amount of good faith between you and Mrs. Guerry if this situation is to be resolved without litigation. Accordingly, we are now permitting you access to the property in the hope that you will also attend to the other matters set forth above. Mrs. Guerry has been hesitant to accept a partial resolution of this problem without your commitment to complete all of the repairs and this is the reason that the cleanup was delayed in some respects. Hopefully, we will be able to work towards resolving all aspects of the damage. On October 11, 1986, Respondent dispatched a crew to the Guerry property to perform the excavation work that was necessary to remove the soil that had been contaminated by the mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort. On this occasion, the workers were given access to the property for this purpose and they removed and replaced the contaminated soil. On October 13, 1986, Tropical sent a crew to the Guerry property to inspect their roof. Mrs. Guerry would not permit the Tropical workers to enter the premises. She indicated that she would not allow the workers on her property to inspect or repair the roof until she had heard from all those with whom she had consulted regarding the matter. Having been denied access to the property by Mrs. Guerry, the workers left without performing their inspection. At no time thereafter did the Guerrys directly contact Tropical and request that the workers return to the residence to finish the repair of the roof. In the absence of any such direct communication from the Guerrys, Tropical did not attempt to do any further repair work on the roof after October 13, 1986. On October 6, 1986, the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board had issued a notice of violation citing Tropical with discharg[ing] a substance (mineral spirits) to ground." A hearing on the charge was held before the Board on November 7, 1986. Respondent appeared on behalf of Tropical at the hearing. He admitted that Tropical was guilty of discharging a pollutant, to wit: mineral spirits, into the soil, although he explained that the violation was a product of ignorance on his part regarding the qualities of mineral spirits. Based on this admission of guilt, the Board imposed a $500.00 fine, which was subsequently paid by Respondent. In late 1986, the Guerrys filed with the Department of Professional Regulation a complaint against Respondent. An investigation of the complaint was conducted, following which an initial determination was made that there was "presently no probable cause to find that [Respondent] violated the contractor disciplinary statutes." Respondent was notified of this determination by letter dated May 14, 1987. This determination of no probable cause was subsequently reversed. On January 11, 1989, an administrative complaint was filed by the Department charging Respondent with wrongdoing in connection with the work performed on the Guerry home. The Guerrys no longer own the home. The property was purchased by Broward County in furtherance of the County's airport expansion project. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In early 1987, Respondent was fined $500.00 for failing to obtain a permit as required by local law. In March, 1988, he was fined $1,500.00 for failing to call for all required inspections. In August, 1988, he was fined $500.00 for proceeding without a required permit, failing to obtain all required inspections, failing to reasonably honor a guarantee, and displaying gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of gross negligence and incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with his supervision of the cleanup of the Guerry residence; (2) suspending Respondent's license for six months and imposing a fine of $1500 for said violation; and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent that are set forth in the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of November, 1989.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 20th day of April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Mr. Masiero is guilty of gross negligence in reroofing work he performed, and misconduct by failing to honor a guarantee given in connection with that work?
Findings Of Fact Mark Masiero was the qualifying agent for All Florida Roofing Company. Mr. Masiero entered into a contract, on behalf of All Florida Roofing Company, with Cristobal Sotolongo of Miramar, Florida, on January 19, 1987 According to the contract Mr. Masiero would [r)emove the roof at the address above down to wood sheathing or smooth, workable surface and haul all debris away (Department Exhibit 1) and install a hot tar roof on a flat deck. The company further gave a guarantee which read: The company guararitees its workmanship for ten years. It will replace faulty materia1 or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge (Department Exhibit 1). Mr. Sotolongo paid $700 at the time the contract was executed. The total price was to be $2,500. Mr. Sotolongo thereafter paid All Florida Roofing Company an additional $1,600. Mr. Sotolongo received a job invoice from All Florida Roofing Company signed by Mark Masiero on March 14, 1987, showing payment in full for the roofing work. Two hundred dollars had been deducted from the contract price for damage done to a patio screen and popcorn ceiling at the Sotolongo residence during the roofing work. After the work was completed, Mr. Sotolongo had a leak in his bedroom. Mr. Masiero returned and put some tar on the roof, but it still leaked. As a result of the leak Mr. Sotolongo lost the ceiling in the bedroom. He called Mr. Masiero repeatedly in an attempt to have the leak repaired and ultimately retained a lawyer, Steven M. Rosen, who wrote to All Florida Roofing Company on Mr. Sotolongovs behalf to complain about the failure to honor the guarantee and perform remedial work. After he received no reply to his lawyer's letter from Mr. Masiero or All Florida Roofing Company, Mr. Sotolongo received estimates for roof repairs from a number of roofers, including Professional Roofing, Inc. of Hollywood, Florida, Pioneer Roofing Company, Inc. of Hollywood, Florida, Universal Roofing, Inc. of Hollywood, Florida, and Gory Roofing, Inc. of Hollywood, Florida. A roof inspection was also provided by Gory Roofing. The reroofing was done by Gory Roofing, Inc. at a cost of $1,500. The problem with the roofing work done by All Florida Roofing Company and Mr. Masiero was that the work did not conform to the contract, in that the old roof had not been removed down to the wood sheathing or to a smooth workable surface. The old roof had been a tar and gravel roof. Lengths of 2 x 4 lumber had been placed around the perimeter of that roof and 1 1/2" to 2" of concrete had been poured on that old roof; the old tar and gravel roof had been placed over the concrete. Mr. Masiero and All Florida Roofing Company had not removed the underlying concrete roof or an older tar and gravel roof below it. This caused the leaking. The repair work done by Gory Roofing, Inc. included removal of the old roofing system, and application of a new roof. After that work, there have been no leaks from the roof.
Recommendation It is recommended that Mr. Masiero be found guilty of violations of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), and that he be fined $2,250. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of March, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mark Masiero 6631 Southwest 26th Court Miramar, Florida 33023 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent LARRY DAVID COMES, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered specialty contractor and held license number RX00400762. Mr. Comes is the qualifying agent for D & L Enterprises. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent CHARLES J. GOREE was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified general contractor and held license number CG C007621. Mr. Goree is the qualifying agent for CJC Incorporated. In the beginning of the year 1985, the Island Village Association decided to reroof all six buildings located in the condominium project. At the time of the decision, all of the roofs were leaking. The existing roofs had been repaired and patched numerous times since the condominiums were built in 1973. On February 27, 1985, the Respondents COMES and GOREE submitted a joint proposal to the association to remove the existing built-up roof, apply a Neoprene/Hypalon roof, and remove and reshingle the mansard roof for $19,865.00. On April 15, 1985, a written contract was entered into between Island Village Condominium Association and David L. Comes, d/b/a D & L Enterprises, as contractor for the reroofing of Building "C." The Contract required the contractor to furnish all materials and labor to remove the existing built-up roof. Rotten wood on the deck was to be replaced on a time and materials basis. Damaged scuppers were to be replaced and other scuppers were to be cleaned out by the contractor. The Neoprene/Hypalon system would then be applied to the flat roof and the parapet walls. The mansard roof was to be removed and reshingled. Although Charles J. Goree, d/b/a CJC Incorporated, was not named in the contract, the omission was an oversight. At all times during the course of the reroofing project, the Respondent GOREE was responsible for the removal of the existing built-up roof and the application of new shingles to the mansard roof. The Respondent COMES was responsible for the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. The reroofing project was a joint undertaking in which Respondents GOREE and COMES exercised equal authority, joint control, or right of control. The Respondents had a community of interest in the performance of the contract with the association. Respondents GOREE and COMES were familiar with what was required of each of them under the verbal joint venture agreement as they had conducted business in the same manner over an extended period of time on several projects. On May 10, 1985, Respondent GOREE applied for and received a building permit for the reroofing of Building "C" at Island Condominiums. During the removal of the built-up roof, GOREE observed "an absolute mess and disaster." The roof had been patched in various ways on numerous occasions. GOREE observed a few "T nails" in a piece of metal stripping picked up with shovels on the roof. The "T nails" discovered were the type which are shot into materials from a nail gun. (See GOREE Exhibit #2) They are not used to secure plywood on a deck because of their short length. Another "T nail," such as GOREE's Exhibit 2, was found by GOREE lying on the area of the roof by the air conditioners. This area of the existing roof was not removed or disturbed during the reroofing process. In the application of his common sense and knowledge of good construction practices and in light of the material in which the "T nails' were located, Respondent GOREE was not put on notice that these "T nails" may have been used to fasten the plywood decking. The type of "T nail" which was used upon plywood roof decking a few years ago in Florida was longer, thicker, and shaped like an elongated wedge. (See GOREE Exhibit 4) None of the "T nails" formerly used for plywood decking were observed by GOREE on the roof. Once the built-up roof was removed, Respondent COMES acted within the terms of the joint venture agreement by applying the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system in full compliance with the specifications as set forth in the contract with Island Village Condominium Association. During the application of the system, COMES and his crew did not observe any conditions on the plywood decking which would alert them to the possibility of any future problems with the system. On May 17, 1985, Mr. Jim Peaks, an Inspector for Brevard County, completed a "dry in" inspection of the roof on Building "C" which had been requested by Respondent GOREE. Mr. Peaks placed a stop order on the project because the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system was not an approved product under the Southern Building Code which he believed was in effect in Brevard County on May 14, 1985. In actuality, the 1982 Standard Building Code was in effect at the time. Upon receipt of the stop order, Respondents COMES and GOREE went to the building department and met with Murray Schmidt, Mr. Peaks' supervisor. Mr. Schmidt had the authority to override Mr. Peaks' stop order. Mr. Schmidt, who was new to the county and his position, discussed the stop order with the Inspector. Mr. Peaks refused to remove his stop order because of the lack of code compliance. Mr. Schmidt verbally allowed the Respondents GORE and COMES to continue to work on the roof. Mr. Peaks was told to investigate the roofing system with the Southern Building Code Conference in Birmingham, Alabama. The Respondents were not notified again as to the status of the stop order, one way or the other. Because the Respondents had been told to continue the work on the roof by Mr. Schmidt, who had the authority to override stop orders, the Respondents reasonably assumed that a stop order was no longer in effect. In fact, the permit had the notation "See Murray" on it after the stop order notation. Upon completion of the project, Respondent COMES contacted the building department and requested a final inspection. In the usual course of dealing between contractors and the building department in Brevard County, a contractor is notified only if there is a problem with the project which needs correction before final approval. Neither COMES or GOREE received notification of a problem. Another recognized, usual course of dealing between a contractor and the building department is that the department notifies an owner or the contractor if a six month permit has expired and a final inspection has not been completed. GOREE was not notified of any permit expiration in this case. Again, the Respondents were given the impression by the inactivity in the building department that business was being conducted in the usual manner. The Respondents believed, based upon past and ongoing dealings with the department, that all of their obligations had been met on the reroofing project. On May 28, 1985, the final payment was received from Island Village Condominium Association and a limited warranty was issued in both Respondents' company names, pursuant to the contract with the association. Shortly after completing the job on Building "C," Respondent COMES was called to repair leaks in the new roof. COMES responded promptly and courteously, and placed the blame for the leakage on various factors such as: (1) The short "T" fasteners had begun popping through the Neoprene/Hypalon and destroyed its ability to prevent water penetration. (2) The roof had an inadequate drain system. (3) The plywood deck was bowed in a concave fashion due to the years of improper weight and excess water on the roof. During a meeting with the board of directors of the association requested by COMES, COMES offered to put on a new roof if the board would install sump pumps to remove standing water. The board rejected COMES offer and authorized the condominium property manager to seek other solutions. The Respondents were not contacted by the board again concerning alternative solutions to the problem. In June of 1986, Mr. Rex Lahr, the condominium property manager, began a review of the roof situation. After consulting with Mr. Tom Butler of the county building department, Mr. Lahr decided that an architect needed to be retained by the association to determine whether a structural deficiency or the new roofing system caused the leaks in the roof. An architect was not hired by the association. A traditional, built- up roof was applied over the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. In the application of the new roof, the drainage system was redone and the flat roof was given pitch, thereby redesigning the roof as well. Mr. Robert B. Hilson, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the Respondents COMES and GOREE failed to properly determine whether the roof deck was in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system. Mr. Robert H. Adams, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the leaks which developed soon after the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon system indicated that the deck was not in a condition to accept the system. Although there is some basis in fact for the opinions rendered by the two experts, their opinions must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) The experts did not personally observe the building, nor was a determination made which would exclude the possibility that the roofing system failed as a result of structural or design defects. (2) There is ample evidence in the case to support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects, as well as latent defects not readily observable to the Respondents at the time the roofing system was applied, and outside the terms of the reroofing contract. Some examples of evidence which support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects are: (1) Mrs. Delores Hammels' testimony that all six buildings had to be reroofed as they all leaked periodically throughout their 12 years of existence; (2) the redesign of the drainage system and the placement of a pitch on the roof by Mr. Roush; (3) the testimony and sketch submitted by Respondent GOREE (GOREE Exhibit #5) which shows that an identical building with a pitch on the roof allows the drainage system, including the internal hidden piping system, to work correctly. The effective redesign of the roof by Mr. Roush confirms this theory as much as, or more than, Mr. Robert H. Adams' theory that the deck was not in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system.
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license should he revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on charges that he violated Ch. 455, Florida Statutes (1979), by (1) abandoning a construction project; making a misleading, deceptive or untrue representation in the practice of his profession; (3) violating local building codes in two instances; and (4) engaging in the business of contracting in a county or municipality without first complying with local licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held registered roofing contractor's license, number RC 0033215, issued by the State of Florida. The license has been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Between October 1, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respondent held an occupational license issued by the County of Indian River, Florida, which enabled him to engage in the business of roofing contracting in that county. However, this occupational license expired on September 30, 1980. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9). In February, 1981, respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Ezra Grant to repair, for compensation, all leaks in the front and rear sections of the roof on Grant's home, which was located in Sebastian, Florida. (Testimony of Grant). When respondent and Grant entered into this verbal agreement, respondent gave Grant one of his calling cards. On the face of the calling card, in the lower right corner, was written "licensed and insured." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Testimony of Grant). At all time material hereto, respondent was not licensed to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Pursuant to the agreement, respondent performed roof repairs on Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent failed to obtain a permit to perform such roof repairs in violation of Section 105.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8a and b). On February 19, 1981, respondent submitted a bill in the amount of $800.00 to Grant for the roof repairs. The bill described the work performed and stated that the "work is guaranteed for 1 year." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Testimony of Grant). On February 20, 1981, Grant paid respondent, in full, for the described roof repairs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Approximately two weeks after respondent performed the roof repairs, the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home began to leak, again, in the area where it was repaired. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent returned to Grant's home, on two occasions1 after the discovery of continuing leakage in the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home. However, respondent did not perform roof repairs on either occasion. On the first occasion, he merely removed equipment which he had left at Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). After Grant complained to petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, respondent returned a second time. He inspected the rear portion of Grant's roof, removed two layers of slate from the roof, and tested it by pouring water over it. Although this test revealed that Grant's roof still leaked, Grant made no effort to repair the leakage. (Testimony of Grant). Arthur Mayer, then the Building Official for the City of Sebastian, observed respondent removing the slate from the roof. He instructed respondent that, upon finishing the work, he should go to the Sebastian City Hall and apply for a roofer's license and a permit for the roof repairs already performed on Grant's home. Respondent promised to comply. (Testimony of Mayer). But, despite his promise, he failed to apply for and obtain a license to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. He also failed to apply for and obtain a roof permit, and pay the proper late fees, as required by Section 107.2, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida, in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Testimony of Mayer; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 8a and c). Grant, eventually, had his roof repaired by another contractor at a cost of $150.00. (Testimony of Grant).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry E. Smith Route 1, Box 111B Fellsmere, Florida 32948 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
