Findings Of Fact At all times material, Paul A. Corbitt was a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC C022488. He was the qualifying agent for Corbitt Brothers Roofing, Inc., Post Office Box 15073-B, Orlando, Florida 22808. Sometime in early April 1983, Helen Hamm of 474 Ellwood Avenue, Orlando, requested that Corbitt Brothers Roofing submit a proposal for reroofing her home. The old roof did not leak, but it was 18-20 years old, and she wanted it replaced before she retired. Paul Corbitt visited Ms. Hamm on April 15, 1983 and submitted a written proposal for re-roofing, providing for 20-year fiberglass, Owens-Corning shingles, to be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The proposal also provided a five-year guarantee against leaks. The job cost was established as $1680.00, but the cost of wood and labor was described as extra, if new wood needed to be installed. During the discussion of the proposal, Corbitt mentioned that mildew and fungus resistant shingles are also available, but these would cost an additional $60-$80 more for the roof. He showed Ms. Hamm the warranty on the special shingles and noted that the warranty excluded staining from fallen leaves, fruit and other debris containing tannic acid. Ms. Hamm was concerned about the overhanging branches and falling leaves but rejected the fungus-resistant shingles, since the leaves would not be covered in the warranty. The job was completed in two days. Corbitt assisted the first day and replaced some rotten wood. The total price paid by Ms. Hamm was $1700.00, which included the original proposal price plus $20.00 for the wood repair. She was happy with the job and felt she received good service. She described the new white roof as "beautiful." About a year later she was having her siding cleaned. The serviceman asked if she wanted her roof cleaned also. She replied that it was brand new, but then looked up and saw that it was getting dark. At this point Ms. Hamm's recollection of her discussion with Corbitt was that he had been told to install the fungus resistant shingles. She relied on him because she did not know anything about roofs. She thought the extra $20.00 she paid was for the special shingles. Further, she vaguely remembered seeing the shingle wrapping in the yard which read, "Owens Corning fiberglass mildew-resistant shingles." Later when she contacted the manufacturer, Owens-Corning informed her that they did not produce a mildew resistant shingle in 1983. Ms. Hamm was convinced that either the manufacturer was at fault or Corbitt Brothers had installed the wrong shingles. She tried to contact Paul Corbitt, but was told that he left Corbitt Brothers and was in business for himself. She contacted the Better Business Bureau and other consumer-related organizations. When she threatened Corbitt Brothers that she would go to the media, Paul Corbitt and an individual he identified as the foreman appeared at her house. The men agreed that the roof should not be getting stained yet and agreed to come back later to remove a single shingle to send to the manufacturer. They never returned, and Ms. Hamm complained to the Department. Paul Corbitt admits that he and his brother, Merle, went to Ms. Hamm's house. He thought Merle had taken care of getting the sample shingle, and said that this was primarily to placate Ms. Hamm. The shingles were not fungus- resistant, nor had they agreed to install the special shingles, as Ms. Hamm was aware that her leaf problem would not be resolved. Even though Ms. Hamm did not deliberately fabricate her version of the agreement, she was clearly confused. She readily conceded that her perception of the shingle wrappers was in error and she admitted that the written proposal did not specify fungus-resistant shingles. No local building permit was pulled for the Hamm re-roofing, nor were any inspections called or, even though Corbitt was aware that the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code, adopted by the City of Orlando, required permits and inspections for jobs such as this. In April 1983, Paul Corbitt did not have a competency card in the City of Orlando and could not pull permits in that jurisdiction. His brother, Merle, had the competency card and was responsible for the permit. Since they had to pay a fee for a competency card, the business did not feel it was necessary for both brothers to pull permits in the same location. Corbitt admits that he was the qualifying agent for Corbitt Brothers, according to DPR records in 1973. Corbitt was previously disciplined by the Board with a letter of guidance on March 13, 1986, after probable cause of violation of Chapter 489, F.S., was found. The nature of the violation is not in evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Paul Corbitt, be found guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S. and Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S. and that he be required to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Belinda Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Paul Corbitt 2517 Regent Avenue Orlando, Florida 32804 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulations Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. Since January, 1982, he has been the qualifying agent for Tropical Clima-Coat Inc. (Tropical). On September 21, 1983, Tropical entered into a written contract with Bertha Guerry and her husband Joseph, in which it agreed, for $2,449.10, to perform the following roofing work on the Guerrys' residence, which was located at 2185 S.W. 38th Street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Remove loose gravel and dirt from existing roof surface/flat deck. Apply Tropical Clima-Coat's resin- based cement to fill holes and cracks in the roof surface. Apply acrylic primer to provide maximum adhesion for acrylic waterproofing. Apply acrylic waterproofing, creating a uniform, bonded, elastomeric, watertight surface. Apply White Acrylic Roof Finish as a durable, mildew-resistant wear barrier. The contract further provided that the Guerrys were to receive a "5 year, 100% warranty against leaks." The work specified in the contract was completed on October 31, 1983, and the Guerrys thereupon paid Tropical in full. Tropical, in turn, gave the Guerrys a written warranty signed by its Vice-President, which provided, in part, as follows: If within 5 years after Tropical Clima- Coat applies its Roof System to your roof, a leak develops because of the failure of our roofing system,* we will repair it free. * Damage excluded from warranty: Tropical Clima-Coat shall not be liable for any leaks or damage caused by riots or vandalism, termites or other insects, penetration of the roof or waterproofing system by nails; nor shall Tropical Clima-Coat be liable for leaks or damage caused by acts of God, including but not limited to: lightening, gale, hurricane, tornado, hailstorm, flood, earthquake, or unusual phenomena of the elements; nor from damage to roof due to settlement, distortion, dry rot, failure or cracking of the roof deck, walls, partitions, or foundation of the structure; nor defects or failure of materials used as a roof base, over which our waterproofing system is applied; nor by biological growth, traffic upon the roof or any similar cause. The warranty also contained the following provision prescribing the time and manner in which claims under the warranty had to be made: The owner of the roof will notify Tropical Clima-Coat immediately by certified mail, at its main office (3746 N.W. 16th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311) of any leaks alleged to result from causes not excluded from coverage by this warranty. Such notification must be mailed within 30 days of discovery of the need for repairs, and all correspondence must include the above Certificate Number. In June, 1986, Mrs. Guerry noticed that there was a leak in her roof above the living room. She telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair the leak in accordance with the warranty she and her husband had been given. Tropical responded promptly to Mrs. Guerry's request. It sent one of its workers to the Guerry residence and he patched the leak. Arrangements were made for the worker to return to the Guerry residence and pressure clean the roof. Pursuant to these arrangements, the worker came back to the residence and pressure cleaned the roof as he had promised. It took him two hours to complete the task. Following the pressure cleaning of the roof, Mrs. Guerry discovered that there were now leaks in the roof above the kitchen. Having made this discovery, she again telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair these newly-discovered leaks. As it had done in response to her previous telephonic request, Tropical dispatched a worker to the Guerry residence, albeit not as promptly as on the prior occasion. The worker applied black ceramic granules to the surface of the roof in an attempt to alleviate the problem. The Guerrys now had a black roof instead of the white roof for which they had contracted. Mrs. Guerry again telephoned Tropical and complained about the new color of her roof. Tropical responded by having a worker go to the Guerry residence and spray paint the roof white. The paint, however, did not adhere well to the granular material on the roof. Furthermore, Mrs. Guerry observed new leaks in the roof. On September 8, 1986, she telephoned Tropical to advise it of these recent developments. Respondent visited the Guerry residence the next day. He told Mrs. Guerry that Tropical intended to remove the granules and recoat the roof with an asphalt material imbedded with a polyester fabric for greater strength to prevent against leaks. He further assured her that, upon completion of the repair work, the roof would be white. On September 15, 1986, a crew of Tropical workers were on the Guerrys' roof with approximately 80 to 100 gallons of asphalt when a sudden, unexpected heavy rainstorm interrupted their work. The rainwater mixed with the asphalt and created "black goo," some of which fell from the roof onto the sides of the house, the porch, the driveway, the sidewalks, the grass, the bushes, and the trees. Tropical had its workers endeavor to clean up the mess that the rainstorm had created. They used mineral spirits in an attempt to remove the hardened remains of the "black goo" from the porch, the driveway and the sidewalks and swept the residue onto the grass, bushes and trees. In so doing, they contaminated the soil and killed the vegetation. Respondent was responsible for the decision to use mineral spirits in the cleanup effort. He did not realize, as he should have, that the use of this substance would result in environmental damage. The cleanup progressed slowly. Frustrated by the lack of substantial progress, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent and demanded that he go to her home and do something about the situation. Respondent did not believe that his presence at the home would help matters any and he told Mrs. Guerry so. Nonetheless, on September 17, 1986, he paid his final visit to the Guerry residence. During his visit, Respondent met with Mrs. Guerry for approximately an hour and a half. Mrs. Guerry expressed to Respondent her outrage concerning the situation. Respondent recognized that Mrs. Guerry had a right to be annoyed and that Tropical needed to take action to remedy her plight. He wrote down on a piece of paper the following things that Tropical would do for the Guerrys: FIX ROOF LOOSEN SOIL W/RAKE 4. REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK 3. REMOVE BLACK FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE REMOVE STICKINESS FROM DECORATIVE WALL (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE STICKINESS FROM SIDEWALKING STONES REMOVE BLACK FROM CHAT @ BACK DOOR SOD- TO BE DETERMINED LATER Respondent indicated he would sign this document and he asked Mrs. Guerry to do the same to acknowledge their understanding and agreement as to the remedial action Tropical was to take. Mrs. Guerry refused. Nonetheless, the cleanup effort continued. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not permit Tropical to continue its repair work on the roof. Concerned about the damage that had been done to the vegetation on her property, Mrs. Guerry contacted a horticultural consultant, Robert G. Haelhle. Haelhle surveyed the property on September 18, 1986. Following his survey he wrote a letter to the Guerrys advising them of the following: On September 18, 1986, I visited the Guerry property at Mrs. Guerry's request. The landscape plantings are in real trouble due to a mineral spirits spill. Mineral spirits and water were used to clean up roofing tar that washed off the roof after a heavy rainstorm. The kerosene [sic] and water mixture washed over the lawn, around the base of a West Indian Cherry tree (very rare), an arborvitae, and a 165 foot Ixora hedge on the east and west sides of the house. The Ixora hedge is over 7 feet tall and 30 years old and would not be replaceable. The mineral spirits/water mix will poison the soil and eventually could affect the water table. All affected soil will have to be removed from the area before any new planting can be accomplished. The West Indian Cherry was starting to yellow and the grass was dying at the time of my visit. Time is of the essence to preserve the remaining plantings. The kerosene [sic]/water mix poisons the root system of the plants and does not allow for normal water penetration. I am not optimistic about the remaining plantings. I contacted Jane McCarthy of the Environmental Quality Board, tel: 765- 5881. She was to send an inspector to assess the soil damage at the site. Neither Tropical nor Respondent replaced the "plantings" that had been damaged or destroyed as a result of the cleanup effort. On September 22, 1989, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent. She reiterated that she did not want any work done on the roof until she had an independent expert inspect it and provide her with guidance. That same day, Edward T. Weiner, a licensed architect hired by the Guerrys, inspected their roof. Based on his observations of the condition of the roof, it was Weiner's opinion that the repair work done by Tropical was unacceptable and that a new roof needed to be installed. He so advised the Guerrys by letter dated September 29, 1986. The Guerrys also hired an attorney, Craig W. Lekach, to furnish them legal advice and representation concerning their dealings with Tropical. On September 23, 1986, Lekach telephoned Respondent and instructed him to "get busy" with the repair work that needed to be done. The following day, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Guerry and told her that he was anxious to complete the repair work on her roof. Mrs. Guerry took the opportunity to again express her displeasure with the work Tropical had done. She also indicated that she had yet to hear from Weiner regarding his assessment of the condition of the roof. That same day, September 24, 1986, Respondent received word that a Broward County Environmental Compliance Officer had inspected the Guerrys' property and determined that mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort had contaminated soil on the property. Respondent was further informed that the excavation of the contaminated soil would remedy the situation. Having received permission from the Guerrys' attorney to proceed with the repair work, Respondent sent a crew to the Guerry residence on September 25, 1986, to vent the roof. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not allow the workers to install the vents. Another telephone conversation between Mrs. Guerry and Respondent ensued. Respondent reiterated that it was his desire to finish the work that needed to be done on the roof. Mrs. Guerry, in turn, indicated that she would not let Tropical continue its work on the roof until she had Weiner's report in hand and had the opportunity to further discuss the matter with her attorney, her son and others with whom she had consulted. The conversation ended with Respondent telling Mrs. Guerry that he would be waiting to hear from her. On September 26, 1989, Respondent wrote a letter to Attorney Lekach in which he complained that Mrs. Guerry was interfering with Tropical's efforts to make her whole. The letter read, in part, as follows: We do carry casualty insurance and I feel it may be best to supply you with the name and address of our agent and allow him to coordinate with Mrs. Guerry's homeowners agent. Truly, this situation is considered an "act of God" and I do not believe that we can adequately communicate with the customer as she is in such an excited state we now find her implacable. We would be glad to install the proper roof vents and do the final painting of her roof if she will permit us. If she will not, then we must close the file and direct her to our insurance company. This is really unfortunate! Sound roofing practices were utilized; we were careful to watch the weather and, although we had a sudden cloudburst, we did stay around to try to clean up. We have not been negligent and we have spent considerable time and money to resolve the situation. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Respondent next heard from Lekach on October 9, 1986. Later that same day, pursuant to Lekach's request, Respondent met with Lekach and discussed "the problems at the Guerry residence." The following day, Lekach sent Respondent a letter memorializing the highlights of their discussion. The letter provided, in part, as follows: You will be permitted access to the Guerry property for the following purposes: Inspection of the roof, cleaning of the yard which will include replacement of sod as necessary, replacement of topsoil as necessary, and removal of tar. The performance of the above shall neither be construed as an admission of liability on your part, nor an acceptance of this work as being satisfactory or complete. I agree, however, that it is imperative that steps be taken immediately to mitigate the damage. Further we will both be doing the following: obtain information about repair methods and costs for chattahoochee surface. obtain information about repair methods for the "staining" problem on walls and patio so that the area can be painted. review proposals for correction or replacement of roof, if necessary. There is going to have to be a certain amount of good faith between you and Mrs. Guerry if this situation is to be resolved without litigation. Accordingly, we are now permitting you access to the property in the hope that you will also attend to the other matters set forth above. Mrs. Guerry has been hesitant to accept a partial resolution of this problem without your commitment to complete all of the repairs and this is the reason that the cleanup was delayed in some respects. Hopefully, we will be able to work towards resolving all aspects of the damage. On October 11, 1986, Respondent dispatched a crew to the Guerry property to perform the excavation work that was necessary to remove the soil that had been contaminated by the mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort. On this occasion, the workers were given access to the property for this purpose and they removed and replaced the contaminated soil. On October 13, 1986, Tropical sent a crew to the Guerry property to inspect their roof. Mrs. Guerry would not permit the Tropical workers to enter the premises. She indicated that she would not allow the workers on her property to inspect or repair the roof until she had heard from all those with whom she had consulted regarding the matter. Having been denied access to the property by Mrs. Guerry, the workers left without performing their inspection. At no time thereafter did the Guerrys directly contact Tropical and request that the workers return to the residence to finish the repair of the roof. In the absence of any such direct communication from the Guerrys, Tropical did not attempt to do any further repair work on the roof after October 13, 1986. On October 6, 1986, the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board had issued a notice of violation citing Tropical with discharg[ing] a substance (mineral spirits) to ground." A hearing on the charge was held before the Board on November 7, 1986. Respondent appeared on behalf of Tropical at the hearing. He admitted that Tropical was guilty of discharging a pollutant, to wit: mineral spirits, into the soil, although he explained that the violation was a product of ignorance on his part regarding the qualities of mineral spirits. Based on this admission of guilt, the Board imposed a $500.00 fine, which was subsequently paid by Respondent. In late 1986, the Guerrys filed with the Department of Professional Regulation a complaint against Respondent. An investigation of the complaint was conducted, following which an initial determination was made that there was "presently no probable cause to find that [Respondent] violated the contractor disciplinary statutes." Respondent was notified of this determination by letter dated May 14, 1987. This determination of no probable cause was subsequently reversed. On January 11, 1989, an administrative complaint was filed by the Department charging Respondent with wrongdoing in connection with the work performed on the Guerry home. The Guerrys no longer own the home. The property was purchased by Broward County in furtherance of the County's airport expansion project. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In early 1987, Respondent was fined $500.00 for failing to obtain a permit as required by local law. In March, 1988, he was fined $1,500.00 for failing to call for all required inspections. In August, 1988, he was fined $500.00 for proceeding without a required permit, failing to obtain all required inspections, failing to reasonably honor a guarantee, and displaying gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of gross negligence and incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with his supervision of the cleanup of the Guerry residence; (2) suspending Respondent's license for six months and imposing a fine of $1500 for said violation; and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent that are set forth in the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of November, 1989.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a roofing contractor and held license number RC 0021620. Respondent has worked in the roofing business since 1947 and has been a licensed contractor since 1969. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the owner and qualifying agent for Dingle Roofing Company. There have been no previous disciplinary actions brought against the Respondent and he has never been sued. 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. At the time his deposition was taken Ted Matchett lived in Crescent City, Florida. At all other times pertinent hereto, Mr. Matchett was the owner and a resident of a duplex located at 2595 Tigertail, Miami, Florida. Mr. Matchett lived in one side of the duplex, which consisted of approximately two- thirds of the property, with his housekeeper, Daniel Lopez. The remainder of the duplex was rented to a tenant who was not identified by name. The roof of Mr. Matchett's duplex consisted of two pitched roofs which tied in to a flat roof. Prior to the work at issue in this proceeding, the pitched portions of the roof were covered with Spanish tile. The roof was approximately twenty years old, leaked in several locations, and was in bad repair. The evidence in this proceeding is consistent with the opinion expressed by the Respondent that Mr. Matchett's roof should have been replaced five years before he contracted with Respondent. At some date prior to contracting with the Respondent, Mr. Matchett hired a "handyman" to go up on his roof and repair the leaks that Mr. Matchett had detected. This handyman did not testify at the formal hearing and his qualifications as a roofer were not established. The handyman patched portions of the flat roof by covering the existing roof with slats and plywood, covering this with tar paper, and applying cold tar. The manner in which the handyman repaired Mr. Matchett's roof does not meet the South Florida Building Code and is not an effective method of repairing leaks. The only practical way to seal a flat roof is to mop it with hot tar. Mr. Matchett testified that the handyman had stopped the leaks and that his roof was not leaking when Respondent's company began its work. The greater weight of the evidence established that the roof was still leaking after the work by the handyman, and that these leaks could not be stopped until the roof was repaired by a roofer. The flat portion of the roof had an air conditioning unit on it. The vent areas of the air conditioner were still leaking after the handyman had done his work. On July 19, 1991, Dingle Roofing Company entered into a contract with Mr. Matchett to re-roof the subject duplex. The contract between Dingle Roofing Company and Mr. Matchett was on a form used by Dingle Roofing Company. The Respondent negotiated this contract and executed it on behalf of his company. The contract amount for the re-roofing portion of the job was in the amount of $5,460. The parties agreed that Respondent's company would add insulation to one portion of the property for an additional payment of $350. The contract required that debris be removed and that rotten wood be replaced. The amount specified in the contract contemplated that up to 200 feet of rotten wood would be replaced. Any rotten wood in excess of 200 feet that needed to be replaced would be replaced at the rate of $1.40 per foot. The contract was silent as to when payment would be due for replacement of rotten lumber exceeding 200 feet. The following appeared as paragraph two of the "General Terms and Conditions" of the standard form contract used by Dingle Roofing Company: 2. EXCEPTED LABILITY: Dingle Roofing Company shall not be responsible for damages or delay, either before commencement of or during the said work described herein on account of transportation difficulties, priorities, accidents, war, act of God, fire, sudden rains, storms, windstorms, other casualty or theft or other causes beyond its control. There was no beginning date for the work and no completion date specified by the contract. The contract was accepted by Mr. Matchett on July 19, 1991. Pertinent to this proceeding, the form contract contained the name, address and telephone numbers of Dingle Contracting Company and the following language that Petitioner asserts violates the provisions of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1989): "ALL TYPES OF ROOFS" and "FREE ESTIMATES". The number, CC 000011956, appearing under the Respondent's signature on the contract with Mr. Matchett was not the Respondent's state contractor license number but was a county license number. The Respondent's state contractor license number RC 0021620 did not appear on the contract. On July 23, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $1,000. On August 15, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $2,000. 3/ Respondent's company did not start the subject job right away because he was backed up with work. Mr. Matchett knew at the time he executed the contract that Respondent's company would not be able to immediately begin the work on the roof. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's company began the subject job. The South Florida Building Code, the code used by the City of Miami, required that a building permit be obtained for roof repairs. Respondent's company did not secure a building permit for this work until November 6, 1991. The Respondent's company worked on Mr. Matchett's roof between August 12 and August 16, 1991. There was a considerable amount of rain prior to and during the time Respondent's men started work on the roof. The work began on the pitched parts since a pitched roof is easier to seal off in the event of rain. After drying in the pitched portions of the roof, work began on the flat portion of the roof where most of the rotten wood was located. On August 14, 1991, Respondent's workmen opened a small section of the flat portion of the roof to replace rotten wood. Before they could complete the work, it began to rain. The workers covered the area with plywood and tar. The workmen returned on August 17, 1991, and placed a tarpaulin over this area. There was no evidence that the workmen failed to act within the standards of the industry in sealing this exposed area. Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the workmen tore holes in the roof and caused tile to be dropped through the ceiling of the duplex into the interior of the premises. Mr. Matchett testified that the interior of his home was damaged by these acts and by leaks caused by the workmen employed by Respondent's company. David Dingle and Edward Dingle, two of the workers who did the work on Mr. Matchett's roof, testified at the formal hearing as to the work that was done on the roof and as to the manner in which the work was done. Their testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Matchett. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while the interior of the duplex was damaged by leaks and there was a hole in the ceiling, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent's workmen caused the leaks that damaged Mr. Matchett's property by the work they did on the duplex. Respondent presented credible evidence that the leaks that damaged the interior of the duplex were on the flat portion of the roof and existed before the Respondent's company began work on the roof. Respondent's company stopped work on Mr. Matchett's roof on August 16, 1991. On August 17, 1991, the workers returned to Mr. Matchett's property, but only to place a tarpaulin over an area of the roof they knew was leaking. Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to the reasons the work was stopped on August 16, 1991, these conflicts are resolved by finding that there were two reasons that work was stopped on that date. First, the workmen discovered that the job was more difficult and would be more expensive because of the amount of rotten wood that needed to be replaced. Respondent had asked Mr. Matchett for more money, but he refused to pay any more until the job was completed. Respondent asked Mr. Matchett for additional money to replace rotten wood since it became apparent that there was rotten wood in excess of 200 feet. 4/ Mr. Matchett had paid the Respondent $3,000, and he refused to make further payment until the work was completed. Second, the rainy season began in South Florida. To properly repair the flat portions of the roof, the Respondent's workmen would have to replace the rotten wood and replace the roof using a hot tar mix. The rotten wood could not be removed during rain because such removal would expose the interior of the house to rain. Additionally, hot tar cannot be mopped on during rain. Mr. Matchett's roof was leaking at the time that the Respondent's company discontinued work in August 1991. Respondent knew that most of the flat portion of the roof was rotten, and he should have known that it was not watertight. Petitioner did not establish what Respondent should have done knowing that the flat roof was not watertight. On August 19, 1991, a heavy rain revealed several leaks. Mr. Matchett made repeated efforts to reach the Respondent by telephone at the telephone numbers listed on the contract. Mr. Matchett talked to the Respondent by telephone on Sunday, October 6, 1991, and was told by the Respondent that he had underestimated the job and that he would finish when he could. After August 17, 1991, the Respondent's company did no further work on Mr. Matchett's roof until November 4, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent's men worked steadily until they completed the dry-in on November 11, 1991. The dry- in passed inspection on November 22, 1991, and the Respondent finished the job in December, 1991. Petitioner failed to establish that the failure of Respondent's company to resume work on Mr. Matchett's roof prior to November, 1991, constituted fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The only expert testimony in this proceeding was that Respondent acted consistent with the industry practices considering the rainy season, the extensive amount of rotten wood that needed to be repaired, and Mr. Matchett's unwillingness to pay for the additional wood that the job required. Petitioner introduced no expert testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which: Finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and which assesses an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $100.00 for that violation. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 July 1994.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Ronald E. Lotz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC0031773 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has been a licensed roofing contractor since February, 1978. His present address is 1650 Palm Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. In April, 1979 Lotz and Allen Hartwell entered into a contract whereby Lotz agreed to install a "new truss, and shingle roof" on Hartwell's house located at 4005 Northwest 19th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. The agreed upon price for the job was $1,225. As is relevant here, Lotz agreed, inter alia, that a "(n)ew exterior siding (would) be used on all gables". According to their agreement, Lotz was to purchase the plywood necessary to complete the work while Hartwell agreed to buy all their necessary materials. Section 6 of Marion County Ordinance 78-5, adopted on January 24, requires that a roofing permit be obtained on all jobs where the value of the work exceeds $100.00. Lotz did not obtain such a permit even though he conceded at the hearing that such a permit was required. Although the contract called for a new exterior side on all gables, Lotz did not install the same. Instead, he installed tongue and groove 3/4 inch boards which he felt were an adequate substitute. He discussed this with Hartwell at the time the job was performed and Hartwell did net object to this change in the contract. Hartwell, who filed a complaint against Lotz, was primarily dissatisfied with a wavy roof. However, that aspect of the job is not a part of this proceeding. The contract itself was modified by the parties a number of times. As a result, Lotz omitted certain requirements therein but added others without additional charge. In all, he was paid $1,125 for the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of failing to obtain a roofing permit in violation of Subsection 489.129(I)(d) Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $250. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Deaptment of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ron Lotz 1650 Palm Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
