Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Legal Affairs ("Petitioner"), is the enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Beginning in 1974, and until its involuntary dissolution in approximately May, 1980, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing fiberglass swimming pools to the consuming public. To induce the public to enter into written contracts for the purchase of these pools, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., disseminated promotional brochures and "fact sheets" which contained representations as to the quality, nature, durability, and characteristics of its pools. Specifically, the following representations in promoting the swimming pools were made: That the pools were constructed with fiberglass and inert materials that never deteriorate; That the pools are resistant to cracking, leaking, and erosion, as well as fading mildew, rotting, rust, shattering, breaking or tearing apart; That the color in the pools is permanently molded and resists fading and never requires painting; That each pool was factory made to perfection from a perfect mold; That the pools are stain-resistant and virtually maintenance free; That the pools' high quality, one piece construction contained no seams, guaranteeing that the pools would never leak; That no need would ever exist to replaster or repair cracks or holes in the pools; That the non-porous surface of the swimming pools would stay bright and beautiful; and No professional maintenance service would ever be needed on the pool During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed concerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed con- cerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: The contractor warrants that all material used in completing the installation con- tracted herein will be new and that all work will be done in a workmanlike manner; that if any substantial defect occurs in workmanship, it will be remedied without cost to the owner if written notice is given the contractor within one year after pool completion, provided pool and equip- ment have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the contractor; and further provided that such defect is not the result of an act of God or the sub-soil or strata of the ground or the water table or circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. . . . In addition, Gold Key Pools, Inc., also made the following warranty on its pools: Gold Key Pools, Inc. warrants that all Gold Key Pools, Inc. fiberglass pool shells shall perform in a satisfactory manner with normal usage and proper care and will not rip, rust, or tear apart under normal conditions for a period of 25 years from the date of installation. This warranty shall apply only when the pool is installed by an authorized Gold Key Dealer, in accordance with our installation instructions, or by the homeowner with our supervision as per installation procedures. Within 1 year of original purchase, the factory or an authorized factory service center will repair or replace for the original purchaser any part of the fiberglass pool shell which is defective, at no costs to the original purchaser. After one year, but within 25 years of date of purchase the factory or an authorized service center will repair for the original purchaser any part of the pool shell which is defective, but the cost of Labor will be borne by the original purchaser. . . . On or about October 12, 1977, Gold Key Pools, Inc., entered into a contract for the installation of a pool and pool decking with Donald F. Planasch. Within three months after the pool was installed, the purchaser began to experience problems including cracking of the decking and hairline cracks in the pool, with consequent water loss. Gold Key attempted repairs on eight to ten occasions, but was unsuccessful. Gold Key stopped responding to complaints from the purchase in early May of 1979. On or about July 29, 1978, Gold Key entered into a contract with Edward Simmon for the installation of a pool and deck. Almost immediately after installation of the pool, the purchaser began to experience problems which included cracking of the pool shell. Gold Key attempted repairs on two or three occasions, each of which was unsuccessful. The purchaser subsequently effected repairs to the pool with another contractor. In August of 1977, Gold Key entered into a contract to install a pool and concreted decking with Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Rickert. Soon after the pool and decking were installed, the Rickerts began to experience the cracking in the concrete decking area immediately surrounding the pool. Gold Key was notified of the problem, but never effectively repaired the deck. On or about April 20, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with James March to install a pool on his property. Within six to eight months from the installation of the pool, cracks and holes developed in the surface of the pool. Gold Key was notified of these defects, but no repairs were ever attempted by Gold Key. On August 23, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with Terry Rose for the installation of a pool and decking. Shortly after installation, the purchaser experienced problems with the development of holes in the surface of the pool, some of which were almost one-inch deep, and cracks in the decking. Although Gold Key was advised of these problems, no repairs were made to them. On or about July 9, 1975, Gold Key entered into a contract for the installation of a pool on the property of Charles Young. Within one year of the installation of the pool, the purchaser experienced cracks in the surface of the pool, with consequent leakage of water from the pool. Despite having received notification, Gold Key never sent anyone to examine the problems with the pool. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Arnold F. Morris, was a shareholder, president and director of Gold Key Pools, Inc. Respondent, John Perez, was the secretary of the corporation from 1975 until his resignation in 1980. Respondent Perez was never a shareholder of Gold Key, and had no responsibility over sales, marketing, or the preparation of contracts related to sales of pools. No evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that any pool purchaser ever spoke to either Respondents Morris or Perez prior to the purchase of their pools. Sometime in 1979, Gold Key Pools, Inc., experienced a serious fire, which destroyed its manufacturing capacity. From the standpoint of manufacturing, Gold Key Pools, Inc., essentially went out of business shortly thereafter. However, Gold Key Pools did maintain a service force of employees to service pools which it had already sold for sometime after the fire. In approximately May, 1980, Gold Key Pools, Inc., ceased doing business at all. At the time it ceased doing business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., for all intents and purposes had no assets.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered pool contractor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP 0029202. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, Item 2: Pet. Exh. C) On or about December 5, 1984, Respondent, d/b/a Miller Pools, contracted with Terry Kilpatrick to construct a pool at the Kilpatrick residence. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 9-10) The contract provided for a contract price of $10,963 for the construction of the pool and $1600 for the installation of fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10) Under the provisions of the contract and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent was responsible for all aspects of the pool construction and Kilpatrick was responsible for the installation of the fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10-11) As part of the contract, Respondent gave Kilpatrick a one-year warranty on the construction of the pool. (T. 19-20) The Kilpatrick residence was located in Putnam County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 37) In December 1984, the 1982 Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect in Putnam County, having been adopted by county ordinance. (Pet. Exh. E, F; T. 40- 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 required that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction of a swimming pool at a residence in the county. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 42) Respondent obtained the necessary building permit for the Kilpatrick pool job. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 also required that certain inspections be done during the course of the construction of a swimming pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 43) Among the required inspections was an electrical inspection and a final inspection. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44-45) It was the responsibility of Respondent as contractor to request the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department to conduct the necessary inspections of the pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44) The purpose of requiring the various pool inspections, including the electrical and the final, was to make certain that the pool had been constructed and was operating correctly and safely. (T. 45) Respondent was aware that certain inspections were required by local law. On three occasions, December 19, 1984, January 7, 1985 and January 10, 1985, inspections were performed on the Kilpatrick pool at Respondent's request. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43) Respondent did not make arrangements for the electrical or final inspections to be performed on the Kilpatrick pool. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43-44) During the construction of the Kilpatrick pool, Respondent was at the job site infrequently. (T. 12-16, 18, 19, 22) Almost immediately after the pool construction was completed, Kilpatrick began to experience problems with the pool, problems which included pitting of the marcite finish, leaks in the tiled area of the pool, and chipping of the brick and coping. (T. 24-35) The problems experienced by Kilpatrick were problems related to the construction of the pool and were covered by the one-year warranty on the pool given to Kilpatrick by Respondent. (T. 19-20) Respondent failed to take any action to correct the problems until after Kilpatrick had contacted the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department and the Department of Professional Regulation to complain about the problems with the pool. (T. 25-28, 35-36, 46-50) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Kilpatrick continued to experience problems with the pool leaking around the tile. (T. 31-31, 34) By Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed an administrative fine of $1000 and suspended Respondent's registered pool contractor's license for five years as a result of Respondent's default in a disciplinary case in which Respondent had been charged with failure to supervise a swimming pool construction project and/or performing said construction in a grossly negligent and/or incompetent manner. (Pet. Exh. C)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1000, and that his license be suspended for an additional year after the suspension imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Terry, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jimmy G. Miller 706 Southeast 35 Avenue Ocala, Florida 32671 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with having been found guilty of a crime which relates directly to the practice of contracting in violation of 489.129(1)(b)(1979); willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building code in violation of Florida Statute 489.129(1)(d)(1979); aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in his evasion of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of 489.129 (1)(e)(1979); knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed person by allowing Respondent's license to be used by said unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of Florida Statute 489.129 (1)(f)(1979); and, violating Florida Statute 489.129(1)(j)(1979) by failing to renew his license every two years and by failing to supervise a construction project. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses the Respondent, Frederick G. Gervia, Leroy S. Duncan, John Knezevich, and Evodio Llevado. Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called as a witness Mr. L. Perry Curtis. Petitioner offered and had admitted without objection eight exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding License No. CG C003114. Respondent is also a registered general contractor having been issued License No. RG 0009802. Respondent's license CGC003114 was delinquent as of December 7, 1981, and had not been renewed for the 1981-83 licensing period. On October 11, 1981, Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. entered into a contract with Mr. Leroy Duncan to construct a fiberglass pool at Mr. Duncan's residence located at 1385 N.W. 192nd Terrace, Miami, Florida. On November 10, 1981, Respondent applied for a building permit (see Petitioner's Exhibit 2) for the pool construction at Mr. Duncan's home. The Respondent signed the application in the block designated "Signature of Qualifier or Owner-Builder". The application named Gervia Construction Company, address 2810 S.W. 78th Court as the building contractor. Gervia Construction Company was neither the general contractor nor a subcontractor in connection with the construction of the Duncan pool. At the time that he applied for the building permit, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gervia Construction Company, 2810 S.W. 78th Court, Miami, Florida 33155. The Respondent has made no request to qualify under either of his licenses as the qualifying agent for Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Neither Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. or its principals were licensed. Prior to and during construction, Mr. Leroy Duncan had no dealings at all with the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Duncan's dealings were primarily with Douglas Lake of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Mr. Duncan observed a substantial portion of the construction, but was not present during the form work for the deck. At no time did Mr. Duncan observe the Respondent working on the construction of the pool at his home. The only work performed by Mr. Gervia on the Duncan pool contract was to check the plumbing prior to the county inspection. The pool was actually installed by two principals of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. and two helpers. These persons were neither supervised nor controlled by the Respondent during construction. During the time period October 11, 1980, through initial construction of the Duncan pool, the Respondent was employed by Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. at a salary of $350 per week. One of his duties was to pull permits. Although the Respondent was also hired to supervise all field construction, at the time the Duncan pool was contracted for and constructed, his supervisory status had been eliminated. The Respondent performed no supervisory duties in connection with the Duncan pool construction. All payments from Mr. Duncan, including two checks totaling $950 and a cash payment of $6,230 were made to Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. No payments were made to the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Gervia did not hire or fire any of the persons who worked on the Duncan pool and kept no records relating to payments received or monies spent on the job at the Duncan residence. Subsequent to the pool being completed, substantial problems and flaws in the Duncan pool developed. The following problems were present in the pool: (See Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) Seven patches on South wall, below water line, are rough, discolored and flaking. The largest two are approximately 12" in diameter and 12" x 4". There is a very small depression in the shallow end seat. The pool flange at the ladder is full of depres- sions, making the edge very rough. Flange cracks at three corners are excessive and need repair. The Southwest corner has a vertical crack down the wall about 1'. See exhibits II, III, IV, and V. The pool wall thickness at corners was 3/8" but north, south and west wall were 7/32" to 1/4" thick. Several dark circles about 2" in diameter are located around perimeter flange and show where holes were drilled and patched poorly. . . Four hydrostatic valves seem high to effectively counteract buoyancy, but approved plan approves 1' above floor at deep end plus one valve in main drain [could not check with pool full]. See notes 9, 10 & 11 - William Meyers plan. 13' x 30' x 72" pool actually measures 12'-11" x 29'-8" x 71 1/8" deep. Vertical floor variations in shallow end are about 1 3/4". Seems depressions occur between ribs. A small bow occurs at Northwest corner near surface of water. Area covers about 18" square. Some concrete voids occur beneath pool lip. Pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Duncan, the Respondent and Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. have repaired those items listed in paragraph 9 in an excellent manner and to the full satisfaction of the owner, Leroy Duncan. On November 17, 1982, the Respondent was convicted in the County Court of Dade County, Florida, of unlawfully aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor in violation of Section 10-22(h) of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was required to pay a $500 fine. The Respondent has been a licensed certified general contractor in the State of Florida since November, 1971, and has had no other charges or actions against his license. There have also been no other complaints filed with the Petitioner regarding the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of those specific violations as set forth in the Conclusions of Law above and that his license as a certified general contractor be suspended for a period of six months and that the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 20th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Frederick G. Gervia 2810 Southwest 78th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On August 1, 1980, Copper Door II, Inc., entered into a contract with Lang Aquatech Pools to construct a swimming pool for $22,338. Lang began construction, but Copper Door did not maintain the payment schedule called for in the contract, whereupon Lang terminated work on the pool. The parties later reached an agreement that upon payment of $5,000 by Copper Door to Lang work would recommence. After payment by Copper Door of the $5,000, little if any work was performed by Lang toward completion of the pool. Copper Door took over construction and subcontracted the remainder of the work on the pool. The pool was opened to the public by Copper Door and cited by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for failure to have an operating permit in violation of Rule 10D-5.65, Florida Administrative Code. Copper Door has been unable to obtain an operating permit because of its inability to complete an application for an operating permit. The Department's application form for an operating permit (Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1) requires execution of a certificate by the pool's engineer and contractor. Because of the aforementioned financial dispute, neither Lang nor its engineer would sign the form. The form requires that both the pool contractor and engineer be registered or certified with the state. The pool was designed by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. Further, the design of the pool was approved by the Department prior to commencement of construction. Work completed by Copper Door after abandonment of construction by Lang included the application of concrete to the inside of the pool, pouring of the decking, installation of a water circulating pump, and a portion of the electrical work. All other work was done by Lang. The pool performs properly and in accordance with other public pools granted operating permits by the Department. The pool was subject to inspection by local building officials. These officials were responsible for ensuring that construction was in accord with plans approved by the Department and local building codes. The Department does not inspect pools during construction. The Department looks instead to the certificate of the contractor and engineer to ensure that a pool meets applicable requirements. The Department's application form has not been adopted by rule or as a rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services accept the application of Copper Door II, Inc., upon execution of the contractor's certificate by Copper Door as owner. Copper Door must keep the pool closed until its application is approved. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Chastain, Esquire 412 Madison Street, Suite 1207 Post Office Box 222 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald R. Odom, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2255 East Bay Drive Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is Phillip Whitaker, Jr., holder of certified pool contractor license number CP-C008325 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. He is the qualifying agent for the business known as Sunshine State Pools pursuant to requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He is responsible for actions of that business relating to construction of the swimming pool which is the subject of this proceeding. His address of record is Miami, Florida. The customer, Ken Gibson, signed a contract with Sunshine State Pools on September 15, 1986. The contract called for construction of a residential swimming pool at 15840 S.W. 155th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The total contract price was $12,700. Testimony adduced at hearing establishes that Sunshine State Pools completed the layout of the customer's swimming pool and the excavation of soil from the proposed pool site by October 1, 1986. These tasks were accomplished under the Respondent's supervision. Metropolitan Dade County issued a building permit for construction of the swimming pool in response to a permit application bearing the signature of Phillip E. Whitaker. The permit and application are both dated October 10, 1986. At hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that initiation of construction prior to pulling the permit and termed this action an "oversight." Based on the candor, demeanor and experience of the Respondent, his explanation of the failure to timely obtain the construction permit is not credited. Initiation of construction for a swimming pool prior to obtaining permits constitutes a violation of part 301.1(n), of the South Florida Building Code and, by stipulation of the parties at hearing, the building code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Respondent was responsible for supervision of the actual pool shell construction. After completion and removal of the wood forms used in the process, steel rods or "rebar pins" required as support during the construction process were not removed. These rods extended some distance above the ground and posed a substantial hazard to Respondent's children while playing. Finally, the steel rods were removed by the customer a week after he requested the Respondent to remove them. Respondent admitted some of these reinforcements could have been left by his subordinates. Respondent admits responsibility for the "back fill" process completed on October 25, 1986. This was originally a responsibility of the customer under the contract as the party responsible for deck construction. The "back fill" process consists of compacting loose soil between the outside of the pool walls and surrounding earth by use of special tamping or pounding equipment. Under terms of the contract, the customer was responsible for construction of a sizeable two part deck surrounding at least sixty percent of the pool's circumference. There now exists a substantial height difference between the coping surrounding the perimeter of the pool and the deck or patio surface. The coping is elevated above the top of the patio approximately two to four inches. As adduced from testimony of Ben Sirkus (stipulated by both parties as an expert in swimming pools and swimming pool construction), coping along the top of the pool walls consists of flagstone rock in conformity with the contract terms. Some of the rocks are cracked. The rocky edge of the coping extends over the pool wall and has a dangerously sharp edge. The sharp edge of the coping overhang could have been avoided by cutting the flagstone coping smooth prior to installation, the acceptable practice among pool contractors. The bottom step to one set of the pool steps has a hazardous 19 inch riser as opposed to the 12 inch distance required by the building code. No hand rail is present. Hollow space under some of the coping stones are the result of either improper installation, dirty cement or sinking of the deck as a result of improper "back filling" upon completion of the pool shell. On one occasion, Respondent admitted responsibility for deficiencies in the pool coping to an employee named Rick Miro. The Respondent further stated to this employee that he intended to do nothing about the problem. Respondent was present during some, but not all, of the coping installation. The "skimmer," the apparatus by which debris is cleared from the pool water, is inoperable as a result of faulty construction of the pool. The failure of the Respondent, who admits to successful completion of approximately 2500 pools with only three complaints, to properly supervise job site activities was the major cause of the pool deficiencies identified at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and assessed an administrative penalty in the amount of $1500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5053 The following constitutes my specific ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Included in finding 2. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4. Included in findings 5, 6 and 7. Included in findings 5 and 6. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 10 with exception of hearsay statement. Included in finding 11.1 Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 11. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark D. Press, Esquire 2250 Southwest Third Avenue 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 1, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, which is given the authority under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the license of, among others, certified commercial pool/spa contractors. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified commercial pool/spa contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-2578 (RP0023937). On September 9, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis Alberto and Margaret Alberto (Albertoes). The contract provided for Respondent to: Remove algae and dirt from Sand Pebble deck. Resurface entire Pebble Deck (1132 sq. ft.) with Flo-Crete. Retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. Place random pattern. Pressure clean existing deck and acid wash. The contract price was $3,600.00 with 50 percent to be paid at the beginning of the contract and the balance to be paid upon completion of the contract. Although it is not covered in the contract, both parties agreed that Respondent had verbally agreed to give the Albertoes his personal five-year warranty on the work he was to perform under the contract, which included covering the pool sand pebble deck with Flo Crete. Design Flo-Crete (Flo-Crete) is a product manufactured by Seamco Laboratories, Inc. (Seamco) and used in covering pool decks. Seamco's position on covering a sand pebble deck with Flo-Crete is as follows: Please be advised that as a manufacturer Seamco Laboratories, Inc., does not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with their product Design Flo-Crete. Going over epoxy stone would encapsulate bacteria, which could cause gases that could cause disruption of the Design Flo-Crete. Seamco is aware that some of their dealers install Flo-Crete over river rock successfully. However, Seamco's official position is as stated above. Respondent was aware of Seamco's position on the installation of Flo-Crete over river rock at the time he entered into the contract with the Albertoes and advised the Albertoes that Seamco did not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with Flo-Crete. However, Respondent advised the Albertoes that he had previously used Flo-Crete over river rock successfully on several jobs. Respondent's did not seal the sides of the deck which allowed the gases created by the encapsulated bacteria to escape through the sides. There is no mention in the contract that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under any condition. Furthermore, Respondent did not verbally advise the Albertoes that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under these conditions. Subsequent to entering into the contract, Respondent proceeded to: (a) remove the algae and dirt from the sand pebble deck by pressure cleaning and acid wash; (b) resurface entire pebble deck with Flo-Crete; and (c) retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. There were some minor problems but those were corrected. However, the Albertoes were not satisfied with the new textured surface because it tended to show scuff marks and the color was too light. In an attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent put lines on the deck by applying tape and painting over the entire surface and then removing the tape leaving the lines. Also, in a further attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent applied a combination of two colors to darken the original color. However, the original color (bone white) continued to bleach through and was not satisfactory to the Albertoes. At this point, Respondent became convinced that he could not satisfy the Albertoes. Apparently, the Albertoes' dissatisfaction with the color of the deck resulted in Respondent not being allowed to apply the polyurethane sealer to the deck. In any event, the polyurethane sealer was never applied to the deck surface. Subsequently, the Albertoes contracted with another contractor to tear out the existing sand pebble deck and refinish the deck to their specifications for a contract price of approximately $3,600.00 There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's method of applying Flo-Crete over the sand pebble deck resulted in the disruption of the Flo-Crete or was the cause of Respondent being unable to satisfy the Albertoes as to the color and texture of the deck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Robert W. Dobson 8965 60th Street, North Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's products, the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder, should be approved for use in public swimming pools throughout the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner manufactures the products under review in this case: the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder (hereinafter referred to as the "Products"). The Products are designed and intended for use by the aged and disabled in entering and exiting swimming pools. The Easy Ladder is intended to be used by people who are able to walk but have difficulty in using a traditional swimming pool vertical ladder. The Transfer Tier is intended for use by people with more disabling handicaps. The Products are intended to be used as portable devices which are not left in the swimming pool. There is nothing to prevent purchasers of the Products, however, from leaving the Products in a swimming pool for extended periods of time. Although designed for use by the aged and disabled, either Product can be used by anyone in the same manner that steps are used. By letter dated May 7, 1986, the Petitioner requested a review of the Products by the Respondent and approval of the Products for use in Florida public swimming pools. The Respondent reviewed the Products and determined that both Products failed to meet the requirements of the Respondent's Rules. The Products are made of fiberglass. When placed in a swimming pool there are areas of the swimming pool and parts of the Products which cannot be seen. Therefore, algae and sediment in the pool can go undetected. Although the Products are intended to be used as portable devices, they can be left in the pool. Additionally, although all areas of the Products are accessible so that algae formation can be prevented, the Products would have to be removed from the pool in order to gain access. The Products are not designed to be installed as a part of a swimming pool. The front edge intersections and the treads and risers of the steps of the Products do not have contrasting colored stripes on the risers of the steps at least two inches wide. The handrails on the Products are not anchored in the pool deck or the bottom step. There are no nationally recognized standards for the Products. The Products are within limits of sound engineering practice. The metallic handrails of the Products and the metallic legs of the Transfer Tier are not to be bonded to other metallic parts of the swimming pool with copper wire no smaller than No. 8 wire. These metallic parts of the Products will be touching the side and bottom of the swimming pool. The metallic parts are not fixed to the swimming pool. They are also not separated from the pool by a permanent barrier. The Transfer Tier is not designed to fit completely flush with the swimming pool wall and floor. Additionally, either Product, if not properly placed in a swimming pool will not fit completely flush with the swimming pool floor. Therefore, the Products will not preclude entanglement or obstruction which could result in the submerged entrapment of bathers. By letter dated May 30, 1986, the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the Products failed to comply with the Respondent's Rules. By letter dated July 2, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest the denial of the Petitioner's application and requested a review of the Respondent's decision by the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board unanimously approved the Respondent's decision. There is a need in Florida for the type of products proposed by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying approval of the Products for use in public swimming pools in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3999 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Deficiency No. 1 3 and 7. Deficiency Nos. 2 & 3 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 4 and 9. Deficiency No. 4 11. Deficiency No. 5 12. Deficiency No. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 5. 4 6. 4a Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4b 9. 4c 10. 4d Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4e The first sentence is accepted in 12. The conclusion of law of the second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4f 13. 5 14. 6 15. 7 16. 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9. Irrelevant. 10 The first sentence is accepted in 17. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Senior Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Frances Daly President and Marketing Director Triad Technologies, Inc. 4000 Galster Road East Syracuse, New York 13057
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
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 finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 8th day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1979, the Respondent entered into a written swimming pool contract with Mr. and Mrs. Stellato, wherein the Respondent agreed to construct a swimming pool for them on their property in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. Among other things this swimming pool contract provided for the payment of a total purchase price of $11,225.00 to be paid in the following manner: ten percent to be paid at the signing of the contract. fifty percent to be paid upon the installation of the tank. thirty-five percent to be paid upon completion of the base decking and screen enclosure. five percent, or the balance of the purchase price, to be paid when the filter system was put in operation. Further, this contract provided that if the purchasers of the swimming pool failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the prescribed schedule, the contractor reserved the right to suspend all work on the swimming pool, and to suspend all warranty work due after completion of the pool. During the month of February, 1980, the Respondent, acting through his duly authorized representatives, did all acts necessary to cause the filter system of the subject swimming pool to become operable, and requested that the Stellatos pay the five percent balance due under the contract. The Stellatos failed to make this final payment, claiming that there was a problem with the pool decking. In response to this complaint the Respondent personally met with the Stellatos, and agreed to cover the problem area of the decking with Chattahoochee River Rock at no cost to the Stellatos. In exchange for this agreement the Stellatos agreed to pay the balance due under the contract. Thereupon, the Respondent installed Chattahoochee River Rock over a substantial portion of the decking at his own expense. During the installation of this Chattahoochee River Rock, Mrs. Stellato contacted the Respondent by phone and demanded that he also install, at his own expense, Chattahoochee River Rock over an existing concrete patio area that had not been built by the Respondent. The Respondent refused to incur this additional expense, because it was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Thereafter, the Stellatos again failed to pay the balance due under the contract. The subject swimming pool was inspected by an inspector for Palm Bay, and the City issued a certificate of occupancy in June of 1980. The pool was ready for a certificate of occupancy in February of 1980 except for the removal of one pile of dirt that still remained on the premises. All other aspects of the pool construction passed inspection in February of 1980 when the pool filter system was activated. Since February Of 1980, the Stellatos have had full use of the subject swimming pool. Except for alleging that some low spots remain in the pool decking, the Petitioner offered no substantial evidence of any other significant problem with the Respondent's construction. Notwithstanding the failure of the Stellatos to pay the balance of the contract price in a timely manner, the Respondent performed warranty work on the subject swimming pool after February of 1980. During the course of this warranty work the Respondent added chlorine chemicals to the pool because the Stellatos had failed to properly maintain it up to June of 1980. Another claim concerning a leaking pipe on the pool sweep did not manifest itself until April of 1981, after the expiration of the one year warranty period afforded by the Respondent to all customers. The Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the leak in this pipe was caused by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the expiration of the warranty period, and the lack of evidence to show that the leak was caused by the Respondent, he did send an employee to the job site and stopped the water leak, at no cost to the Stellatos. On several occasions when the Respondent or his employees attempted to satisfy the complaints of the Stellatos, they had to leave the job site because of the abusive language and conduct directed toward them by the Stellatos. In one instance Mr. Stellato ordered the Respondent's employees from the job site and prevented performance of any work under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against John W. Thornett be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982.
