Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard K. Willis, a registered roofing contractor licensed by Petitioner and holding license RC-0041275 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. His address of record is Winter Haven, Florida. Respondent and Jeffrey Smith entered into a contract in July of 1986. Under terms of the agreement, Smith, a chiropractor, agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $2,200 to re-roof the facility which served as Smith's home and office. The agreement signed by the parties contains a written guarantee that materials to be used in the project would meet specifications set forth in the document. Further, the guarantee stated that work would be completed in "a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." The project was completed by Respondent and Smith paid him the agreed upon amount of $2,200 in July of 1986. About three weeks after completion of the job, Smith noticed a leak in the roof and telephoned Respondent. Two or three weeks later and after several more telephone calls from Smith, Respondent returned to the job site. By that time, interior damage to the ceiling tiles had been sustained. The tiles became discolored by leaking water and started to collapse. Respondent proceeded to patch the leaking roof with tar. In June of 1987, Smith's facility developed a second leak in the roof over the back portion of the house. Respondent returned, reviewed the problem and agreed to tear off the leaking section of the roof and replace it. As a result of this action by Respondent, the leakage increased. More extensive damage was caused by water leaking down door frames and across the ceiling of the house. Respondent had also promised that he would put a "tarp" over Smith's roof to temporarily stop the leakage until repairs could be effected, but such covering never materialized. After Respondent's second attempt to fix the roof, Smith advised him that the leakage was continuing. Smith then tried several times without success to communicate with Respondent and get him to return to the job site. Finally, after Smith contacted local government building officials, Respondent returned and stopped the leakage. The repairs came too late to prevent ceiling damage which cost Smith $400 to repair. When a third leak developed in the roof in February of 1989, Smith hired another contractor to fix the leak for the sum of $60. Petitioner provided expert testimony which establishes that Respondent demonstrated incompetence in the practice of roof contracting. Further, the work performed by Respondent did not meet the terms of the guarantee he gave to Smith. These conclusions are based on the fact that workmanship provided by Respondent failed to meet standard practices of the industry. Such failure is demonstrated by the irregularity with which surface material was applied to the roof; the lack of sufficient gravel; the lack of uniform distribution of that gravel; missing metal flashing and lifted or separated flashing at the vertical surfaces of the roof; and improper installation of flashing around the plumbing vent exiting through the roof. Respondent's previous disciplinary history with Petitioner consists of an administrative fine of $250 on June 19, 1985, and letter of guidance issued on August 14, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, (1988) and revoking his license as a roofing contractor in accordance with provisions of Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-17. Addressed in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard K. Willis 2106 Winter Lake Road Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC- 0042963. At no time material hereto did Respondent's license qualify "Energy Plus Roofing" with Petitioner. Notice of the final hearing herein was provided to Respondent at his last known address of record in Bradenton, Florida, as shown on his Election of Rights form. The notice was not returned by the post office as "undeliverable" or for any other reason. In April, 1988 Respondent entered into a contract to perform certain roofing work for John Beede at a contract price of $1,610. Respondent executed this contract on behalf of Energy Plus Roofing, and provided a ten year warranty on workmanship and materials. Beede paid the full contract price to Respondent for work performed, but Respondent failed to correct leaks in Beede's Florida room. In fact, after the job Beede had additional leaks in his Florida room. Respondent failed to respond to several calls from Beede for further corrective work under the ten year warranty. Finally, Beede had to have a "roof over" constructed to correct the leaks in his Florida room at an additional cost of $4,000. Respondent did not obtain any permit from Manatee County for the work he performed for Beede, although Manatee County requires contractors to obtain permits for such jobs in excess of $200. Additionally, Respondent did not register "Energy Plus Roofing" with Manatee County, although Manatee County does require such registration. In March, 1986 Respondent entered into a contract with Marie Allen for roof repair on her mobile home in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida. Allen did not have any leaks in her roof at the time, but she was simply seeking preventive maintenance. Respondent contracted with Allen on behalf of Energy Plus Roofing to pressure clean her roof and "apply energy plus roof system to (her) existing roof" for a contract price of $1,000. Respondent provided a ten year warranty on workmanship and materials. After Respondent's crew pressure cleaned her roof, Allen began experiencing leaks, and she presently continues to have four leaks which she did not have before work was performed by Respondent. She has tried repeatedly to contact Respondent under the warranty, but has been unsuccessful. Respondent is not registered in Hillsbourough County, and he did not obtain any permits for the Allen job. Hillsborough County requires contractors to be registered and to obtain permits for jobs such as he performed on Allen's roof. The only name on Respondent's license is his own individual name, Emanuel Fred Mosley.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of one (1) year and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 4th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0442 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 10-14 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Emanuel Mosley 5707 5th Street East Bradenton, FL 33507 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction findings Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating licenses for roofing contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent held two licenses; he was a certified roofing contractor, license no. CC CO55580, and a registered roofing contractor, license no. RC 0060386. Respondent filed an application to qualify the company, D.S.S. & Sons, Inc., as a licensed roofing contractor; however, he failed to complete all documents necessary for licensure, and his application was closed for lack of response effective August 3, 1993. Respondent's address of record with the Department is 821 SW Dwyer Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983. D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. is not now, nor has it ever been, licensed to perform roofing construction by the State of Florida. Facts common to all consumers On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County, Florida, resulting in damage to hundreds of roofs. Roof repair or total replacement following the storm was not uncommon. Due to the large amount of damage, and the demand for roofing materials created by the volume of work to be performed, some contractors had difficulty obtaining roofing supplies. Additionally, some contractors had difficulty hiring qualified labor to perform the extensive roofing that was in great demand. The problems with obtaining materials and labor, however, were short term in that most roofing contractors made arrangements to bring in supplies and staff from other areas. In fact, by the time the work was to be performed in connection with these cases, the problems which had plagued the Dade County contractors were subsiding. Additionally, at all times material to these cases, the weather would not have been a factor to justify the delays complained of by these consumers. Rainy weather did not cause any prolonged work delays after the storm. Findings as to Helmly Charles Helmly resides at 11985 SW 98th Lane, Miami, Florida. His home was damaged by Hurricane Andrew and required roof replacement. Mr. Helmly contracted with Respondent to re-roof his home for the sum of $17,940.00. The contract was signed by Respondent's salesman, Felix Fowler, and identified D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. doing business as Darryl Saibic, Roofing Contractor as the licensed entity. Mr. Helmly paid an initial deposit of $5,382.00 in order for the Respondent to begin work on the project. The next payment, an additional $5,382.00, was to be due at the "dry in" stage of the job, with the final payment (the balance) due on completion. One of the contract provisions Mr. Helmly insisted upon was a completion deadline to be stated in the contract. He was expecting visitors and he was anxious to have the home re-roofed before their arrival. He insisted that a guaranteed completion date of March 7, 1993 be noted on the face of the contract. Mr. Helmly complied with all requirements of the payment schedule outlined by the contract. In fact, he remitted $10,764.00 even though the roof had not been at the "dry in" stage. Between January and February, 1993, the Respondent removed the old roof, installed a base sheet, and nailed a single ply roof membrane to the roof. After February, 1993, the Respondent failed to timely complete the Helmly roof. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Helmly roof was no more than $3,588.00. The Respondent did not respond to numerous telephone calls and letters from Helmly, and threatened to place a lien on the Helmly property when Mr. Helmly attempted to cancel the contract in May, 1993. Mr. Helmly went to the Dade County Building Department and complained about roof leaks in June, 1993 (Respondent had still not done any further work). On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Helmly property to repair the roof. The repairs caused the roof to leak more. Respondent did not refund Mr. Helmly's money, did not complete the roof, and showed a gross indifference to the plight which resulted when he failed to timely complete the project. In July, 1993, desperate to have his roof completed, Mr. Helmly offered to purchase the tiles himself if Respondent would have a crew come install the new roof. Respondent agreed to have a crew install the tile within ten days of its arrival. On September 17, 1993, Mr. Helmly took delivery of the new tile, paid for it in full (a cost of $4,803.00) and notified the Respondent so that the installation could begin. Respondent never returned to complete the re-roofing. He failed to honor his verbal agreement to install the tiles. By letter dated October 1, 1993, Respondent offered to reimburse Helmly for the overage if he would hire another contractor to complete the job. On October 19, 1993, Mr. Helmly hired a new contractor who completed the installation of the new roof in early November, 1993. Approximately eight months after the deadline on Respondent's contract, Mr. Helmly had his new roof. Extra expenses totalling $2,936.21 were paid by Mr. Helmly as a result of the Respondent's abandonment of this job. Findings as to Gurdian On January 14, 1993, the Gurdians contracted with Respondent through his agent, Ed Comstock, to repair the roof on their home located at 13301 SW 110 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The contract was executed as D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. d/b/a Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor and called for a total payment of $7,725.00 for the work to be done. The Gurdians made a deposit of $2,300.00 on January 14, 1993 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received a partial release of lien. On February 8, 1993, the Respondent pulled a permit for the Gurdian home but never called for inspections on this project. In February, 1993, all the tiles were removed from the roof and roofing paper was installed. On March 1, 1993, the Gurdians made a second payment of $2,300.00 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received another partial release of lien. The Respondent did not timely complete the Gurdian roof. From June through November, 1993, Respondent sent the Gurdians unsigned notices claiming he would return to their job but did not do so. Numerous excuses were offered as to why the project was not completed; however, none of these had merit. The Gurdians waited until April, 1994 hoping the Respondent would return and complete the work. They drove to Respondent's office and left a message seeking assistance. Finally, Respondent recommended a company called CTI to complete the roof work for the Gurdians. When contacted, CTI told the Gurdians it would cost $7,600.00 to complete their job for which they, not Respondent, would be responsible. The Gurdians then attempted to notify the Respondent at his address of record by certified mail of their continuing problems but the letter was returned to them unopened. In June, 1994, the Gurdians hired another company to finish their roof which was finally complete and passed inspections on July 26, 1994. The Gurdians were required to pay a total of $13,475.00 to have their roof replaced because the Respondent failed to perform under the original contract. Due to the Respondent's abandonment and indifference in connection with this project, the Gurdians were damaged in an amount not less than $4,200.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Gurdians' roof did not exceed $1,545.00. Respondent has not refunded any of the funds paid by the Gurdians. Findings of fact as to Vila Marta Vila resides at 11116 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 33186. Like the others discussed above, the Vila home was damaged and required a new roof. On January 13, 1993, Vila signed a contract with Ed Comstock acting on behalf of D.S.S. and Sons, Inc., doing business as Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor, to have her roof repaired for a total contract price of $7,200.00. A down payment of $2,160.00 made payable to the company was made at that time. On February 8, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to re-roof the Vila home. On February 15, 1993, Vila paid an additional $2,160.00 to Respondent. At that time Respondent removed the tiles from the Vila roof and installed one layer of roofing paper over the roof decking. Despite representations from Respondent that new tiles would be delivered in approximately three to four weeks, the Respondent did not install a new roof on the Vila home. In February and March, 1993, the roof was patched three times to stop leaks but no substantive work was performed to install new tiles. Respondent did not return to the Vila home despite numerous requests from the homeowner for the work to be completed. In June, 1993, Respondent represented that the Vila job might be completed if the tiles were sent out COD. When Vila attempted to verify that information, she was told she had paid enough to not have that concern. However, no tiles were ever delivered to her home. In August, 1993, Vila, after Respondent failed to return telephone calls, wrote to Respondent and demanded a refund. She has not received one. Vila ended up paying $7,754.00 to another contractor to have her roof replaced. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Vila project did not exceed $1,440.00 yet he has failed or otherwise refused to refund the difference between that amount and what she paid. Vila has suffered monetary damages in an amount not less than $4,800.00 as a result of Respondent's abandonment of this project. Findings of fact as to Bermudez Mr. and Mrs. Bermudez reside at 8335 SW 147th Place, Miami, Florida. On November 30, 1992, they signed a contract with Respondent in the amount of $6,400.00 to correct extensive leakage on both floors of the Bermudez home. Mrs. Bermudez gave a deposit in the amount of $1,860.00 and was told that the repairs would begin in two weeks and be completed in approximately five weeks. In December 1992, and January, 1993, the Respondent performed some minor patching but no significant work was undertaken to repair the Bermudez home. In January, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to replace the Bermudez roof. Within a week of the permit, Respondent sent an unsigned form letter to the Bermudez advising them that there would be delays. In February and March, 1993, the Respondent's crew stripped the old tile off the Bermudez home and installed batten and roofing paper over the decking. Mrs. Bermudez made deposits totalling $3,720.00 to Respondent in connection with this contract. Despite numerous requests from Mrs. Bermudez, Respondent did not complete the roof. In July, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Bermudez home in connection with a leak but the repair did not resolve the problems and did not substantively finish the roof. As with the other cases, between July and November, 1993, Respondent sent numerous unsigned form letters to Mrs. Bermudez offering false or ridiculous excuses for why the project had not been completed. In January, 1994, Mrs. Bermudez filed a formal complaint against Respondent but he never completed the job nor refunded the deposits. Between March and July, 1994, Respondent represented he would complete the Bermudez job but did not do so. The Bermudez roof was not completed until December 13, 1994. As a result of Respondent's incompetence, inability, or refusal to complete the Bermudez roof, the family lived with a leaking roof for approximately two years and incurred unnecessary expenses. Respondent showed a gross indifference to the plight of the Bermudez family. Respondent could not have timely completed the projects described above during the period July, 1993 to July, 1994, as his workers compensation had expired. The numerous promises to perform the contracts as originally agreed were meaningless.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's licenses, requiring Respondent to make full restitution to the consumers in these cases before being entitled to seek new licensure, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases as set forth in the affidavits filed in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1995, 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 25th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1079, 95-1080, 95-1081, 95-1082 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 155 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Masters Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Darryl Saibic 821 S.W. Dwyer Road Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard McDougal, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0050466. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for D & R Roofing Co., at all times pertinent to these proceedings. On July 31, 1989, Arla Jackson signed and accepted Respondent's written proposal to re-roof a house belonging to Jackson, located in Washington County, Florida. Prior to engaging Respondent to re-roof the house, Jackson had only a minimal amount of leakage in a couple of corners inside the house. Under the terms of the written proposal provided by Respondent to Jackson, Respondent agreed to remove the old roof covering from the structure; install a new three ply fiberglass felt covering; install new eave metal around the roof perimeter; extend the roof a short distance at one end; and top coat a utility building on the premises. Further, Respondent agreed to haul away debris resulting from the job. Completion of the roofing project by Respondent and receipt of payment from Jackson in the amount of $3,000 occurred on August 9, 1989. $2,900 of this amount was payment to Respondent for replacing the old roof while the remainder satisfied charges by Respondent for additional work required to extend the roof. Shortly after Respondent's completion of the roof replacement, Jackson began to telephone Respondent, requesting that he come and repair holes in the roof that were leaking water as the result of rain. Respondent came to Jackson's house on at least three occasions to attempt to stop leaks in the roof. He eventually determined that he had stopped the leaks and told Jackson that, as far as he was concerned, there was no roof leakage problem. Jackson's flat roof continued to leak. Eventually, Gus Lee, an unlicensed roofing assistant to H.M. Strickland, a local licensed contractor, agreed to repair her roof and eliminate the leakage problem. Strickland's signature appears with Lee's on written documentation bearing the date of October 1, 1989, and promising a "fine roof with no leaks; and I will stand behind it." Jackson accepted the Strickland offer. Jackson paid approximately $1,925.00 to Lee for work in connection with replacing the roof and painting the interior ceiling of the house. She paid an additional $653.79 for building supplies in connection with the project. Overall, Jackson paid approximately $2,578.79 for labor and materials to re-roof her house and repair the interior ceiling damage resulting from the leakage. This amount was in addition to the amount previously paid to Respondent. On October 20, 1989, Lee, the unlicensed assistant to Strickland and the person who actually undertook the task of re-roofing Jackson's house, removed the previous roofing material placed on Jackson's house by Respondent. Lee observed no fiber glass felt covering material on Jackson's roof at the time he re-roofed the house. Lee's testimony at hearing was credible, candid and direct. Although unlicensed as a contractor, Lee's attested experience supports his testimony regarding what he observed and establishes that Respondent failed to comply with his agreement to Jackson to provide fiber glass felt during the initial roofing of the house and instead used a less expensive material. Lee's testimony, coupled with that of Jackson and Lee's son, also establishs that significant damage had occurred to the interior ceiling of Jackson's house as the result of leakage after completion of work by Respondent. After Lee completed the re-roofing of Jackson's home, inclusive of use of a six ply felt covering on the roof accompanied by pea gravel and sealant, the roof's leakage stopped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $1500 upon Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-4. Adopted, though not verbatim. 5.-8. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's Conclusions. 9.-11. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard McDougal Box 10277 Panama City, FL 32404 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license number is CC C020246. Respondent is vice president of Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (The Dean Company), Post Office Box 2077, Clearwater, Florida. By proposal submitted March 31, 1983, and accepted by Marshall Kent on April 1, 1983, the Dean Company contracted to remove the existing roof on Kent's residence and replace same at a price of $8,600 (Exhibit 1). The work was supposed to start April 11, 1983 and be completed on April 15, 1983. This contract was signed on behalf of Dean Company by Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, as vice president of Dean Company and by Marshall Kent. Kent is an experienced residential contractor who acknowledged having built approximately 2,000 homes. While removing the existing roof, Dean Company workers found the 30-year old house had three plys of roofing applied since the house was constructed and to remove this thick roof heavier equipment that normal was required. Kent's residence had a tectum roof decking which consists of a metallic-fiber substance which has a long life and serves as inside ceiling and outside roof decking over which built up roofing is applied. While removing the existing roof the tectum deck was fractured and Kent ordered Dean Company workers off the Job. By letter dated April 18, 1983 (Exhibit 6) Respondent advised Kent that the cost of replacing the damaged tectum would be borne by the Dean Company and it was necessary to get on with the project before additional damage was done through the areas of roof exposed by removal of the original roof. Upon seeing Exhibit 6, K. A. Williams, president of Dean Company and father of the Respondent, concluded that the problems may have been exacerbated by a personality conflict between Respondent and Kent, and turned the job over to R. L. MacMurry, another vice president at Dean Company, who had considerable experience in the roofing business. By letter dated Apri1 19, 1983 (Exhibit 7) MacMurry, on behalf of Dean Company, advised Kent that since he questioned their ability to properly install the new decking to replace the damaged decking they would employ the services of a general contractor to replace the damaged tectum, and if the replaced tectum did not match the original tectum they would have the entire ceiling painted. Kent denies receiving this letter. Kent refused these offers and by letter dated April 21, 1983 "Exhibit 8) R. A. Williams pointed out that Kent's refusal to allow Dean Company to immediately complete the roofing work in progress could lead to serious damage from water intrusion and that such damage would be Kent's responsibility. On Friday, April 29, 1983 a meeting was held between the Kents, Williams and MacMurry at which Dean Company -agreed to immediately recommence roof work, bring in a general contractor to replace the damaged decking and complete the contract. Kent demurred until the agreement was reduced to writing, preferably by an attorney. Kent prepared an endorsement on Exhibit 9 in which responsibility for the repairs was, in Kent's opinion, shifted to the general contractor. This endorsement was accepted by the parties on May 3, 1983. The residence was reroofed in accordance with the latter agreement and Kent never advised Dean Company that all work was not satisfactorily completed. Dean Company provided Kent with a five (5) year Roofing Guarantee (Exhibit 11) dated May 10, 1983, which was forwarded to Kent by letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exhibit 10) with an invoice for the total owed on the job (Exhibit 14). Kent responded with letter dated May 17, 1983 (Exhibit 23) contending he was not whole, the job was not. complete and the guarantee was a joke. Kent considered the Roofing Guarantee suspect because it was a form used by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association. Shortly after this time Kent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and upon his release from the hospital in August 1983 he found that a mechanic's lien had been placed on his property by Dean Company. He also found what he believed to be leaks into the ceiling of a bedroom but made no complaint to Dean Company. Kent then hired a roofer, Chuck Goldsmith, to inspect the work done on his roof. When Goldsmith tried to negotiate the dispute between Kent and Dean Company, Kent fired him. Kent then hired William A. Cox, an architect and roofing consultant, to inspect the roof and advise what needed to be done. Cox inspected the roof in late October 1983 and submitted a list of discrepancies he recommended for correction. In one place he was able to insert a knife blade between the Fla. roof and the vertical wall against which the roof abuts which indicated no sheathing had been installed. Expert witnesses opined that without metal sheathing the roof would have leaked within six to eighteen months and the roof could never have been intact for the 30 years the house had been built without sheathing at such a joint. The vertical side of the original flashing would have been under the stucco at this point and there was no evidence that the stucco was disturbed when the new roof was first installed by Dean Company. New flashing was subsequently installed by Dean Company at this juncture but no one testified respecting the flashing observed or not present when this new roof was removed to insert the new flashing. Failure to insert flashing at such a juncture of horizontal roof and vertical wall would constitute a violation of the Standard Building Code. The report Cox gave to Kent was not made known to Dean until January 1984. By letter dated August 21, 1984 (Exhibit 13) Clark and Logan advised K. A. Williams that they would do all of the work listed in the Cox report on the Kent residence. This work was done in August 1984. Kent contends the leak continued in his bedroom after the work was completed but he never relayed this information to either Clark and Logan or to Dean Company. He has yet to pay one penny for the work done on his roof. Kent considered Clark and Logan to be the prime contractor on the job at the time the August 1984 work was done. Kent further testified that following that work Clark and Logan abandoned the job and he also filed a complaint against that general contractor. Since April 1983 following the damage to the tectum decking, Respondent, Bruce Williams, has had no responsibility for, and did no supervision of, the reroofing of Kent's residence. When the roof was inspected by the Pinellas County Building Inspector he found the workmanship done on this job only slightly below standard. At one place-on the roof Cox found the lower section of flashing overlapped the upper section of flashing which would have permitted water to enter under the flashing. This was a mistake but not an uncommon one for roofers to make. When pointed out to Dean Company the situation was promptly corrected.
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
