The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed negligence in the practice of engineering as alleged in the amended administrative complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was duly licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0023976. In September, 1992, Dade County passed and adopted an emergency ordinance amending the South Florida Building Code to handle the processing of construction permits and inspections created by the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. Section 6(e) of the Emergency Ordinance addressed roof repairs and required a minimum of six nails to be used for each shingle. By early 1993, Dade County Roofing Inspectors were severely overtaxed by the volume of work occasioned by Hurricane Andrew. To ensure more timely inspections, Dade County Officials approved the use of private practice architects and engineers to assist the county in making inspections and affirming code compliance. At all times pertinent to this case, Robert Brombach (the "Owner") was the owner of a residence (the "House") located at 8050 SW 92nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. In March 1993, the Owner hired Hytek Roofing to re-roof his residence because of damage from Hurricane Andrew. The re-roofing job was to begin on March 8, 1993 and was to be completed by March 23, 1993. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by All State Engineering & Testing Consultants, Inc. Hytek Roofing hired Respondent in his capacity as a special inspector for Dade County to perform the shingle inspection/final inspection for the re- roofing of the House. The roof of the House had two separate systems. The front and back of the roof were pitched sufficient to hold shingles. There was also a flat deck portion of the roof that had very little pitch. Prior to the repair work at issue in this case, this flat portion was hot mopped and tarred. Pursuant to the 1988 South Florida Building Code which was in effect at the time of this re-roofing job, composition shingles were not to be applied to roofs having an incline of less than 2 1/2 inches per foot. After it completed re-roofing the shingled section of the roof, Hytek contacted Respondent to do an inspection. On March 23, 1993, Respondent conducted a "shingle inspection/final inspection" of the roof and prepared a Daily Field Inspection Form (the "Inspection Form".) Respondent's Inspection Form states, "JOB DESCRIPTION: The entire roof completed as per the codes and specifications...INSPECTION RESULTS: Placement of shingles comply [sic] with the New South Florida Building Codes [sic] and Requirement." Respondent submitted his Inspection Form to the Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department. Subsequent to Respondent's inspection, Hytek Roofing applied shingles to the flat deck portion of the roof. After applying the shingles on the flat roof, Hytek contacted Dade County building officials to conduct a roof inspection. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Manuel Jimenez was a Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department Roofing Inspector. On March 31, 1993, Jimenez conducted an inspection of the House's roof. During his inspection, Inspector Jimenez performed a spot check of the roof on the front part of the House. All of the 20-30 shingles he examined in the selected area did not comply with the six nail Dade County code requirement. In fact, all of them were found to contain only three (3) nails a piece. In addition, some of the nails were above the tar strip. Jimenez also noted that the back of the roof did not appear to be properly laid. The back roof shingles were not laid in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations nor were they straight. After spot checking the front and back of the roof, Inspector Jimenez noticed the shingles on the flat portion at the rear of the House. Using a level, Inspector Jimenez measured the "pitch" on the flat roof as "one and one- quarter to twelve" instead of the code required minimum of "two and one-half to twelve." He concluded that the roof was in violation of the code because shingles were used on the flat roof which did not have an adequate pitch. On April 1, 1993, Jimenez issued a Summons to Hytek Roofing noting the above violations and requiring corrections including the re-nailing of shingles below the tar strip with six (6) nails per shingle, and the removal of the shingles from the flat roof. The county also required that the back of the roof be replaced. The Metro Dade Building & Zoning Roofing Inspections Checklist requires a shingle inspection to include an inspection of the tie-in to any flat roof. Because the flat deck portion of this roof was in the back, Respondent should have looked at the back of the roof in order to inspect the tie-in to the flat deck. Respondent introduced a number of form documents which reflect language used in the industry by Special Inspectors when certifying the completion of construction work. The standard language on those documents provides that by filling in the designated blanks, the Special Inspector asserts that the work, to the best of his knowledge or belief and professional judgment, is in substantial accordance with the approved plans and the South Florida Building Code. Respondent's Daily Field Inspection report was prepared on his company's letterhead, not a form document and contained Respondent's statement that the entire roof had been completed as per the codes and specifications. Respondent's report did not contain the qualifying language set forth on the forms presented at the hearing. In other words, Respondent did not qualify his statement or state the extent of his investigation leading to that statement. After considering all the evidence, it is concluded that Respondent's inspection was insufficient and that the conclusions set forth in his report were inaccurate. Moreover, at least some of the Code Violations cited by the county should have been detected by a reasonable inspection. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent failed to utilize due care in the performance of his engineering duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Alberto Ramirez guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, impose an administrative fine of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, issue a reprimand, and place the license of Alberto Ramirez on probation for a period of two (2) years with such reasonable terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4312 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 6. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 13. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 23. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 24. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 25. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11 and 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 15. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16 and 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Subordinate to findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Dept of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Chief Attorney Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Reydel (Sonny) Santos, Esq. Inter-American Law Center 10753 SW 104th Street Miami, FL 33176-8842
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Charles J. Eckert, was a registered roofing contractor in Florida. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), and the Construction Industry Licensing Board, (CILB), were and are the state agencies responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in this state. On August 7, 1987, James F. Gordon, an individual with a reported building and real estate business background, contracted with the Respondent to install the roof on the house he was building and which he had designed. Mr. Gordon chose the roofer himself rather than using the general contractor's roofer because that individual was not familiar with the type of tile to be installed. Respondent had installed a roof of this type tile on the condominium apartment in which Mr. Gordon was living at the time, and appeared to have done a good job, so Mr. Gordon chose him to do the house roof. The contract was negotiated between Mr. Gordon and the Respondent and his partner who took the plans to study before submitting their proposal to install the tile and base which, upon acceptance, became the contract for the job. Mr. Gordon was to pay for the tile ordered by Respondent. The Respondent ordered 9400 square feet of tile plus caps which came to between $8500 and $8800. The contract between Gordon and Respondent, for installation Of the tile and base, called for a payment of $9800. The original agreement between the parties was executed in July, 1987. Work was to start about three months later, after the permit for house construction had been pulled, based on an estimate of how construction would progress. As the house was erected, Mr. Gordon would notify the Respondent of the progress so he could have some idea as to when his work was to begin. The actual roof work began sometime in October, 1988. Respondent's men came timely and did the hot tar and felting during which time, Mr. Gordon often went up on the roof with the Respondent to see how things were going. The original plans called for Anderson skylights in the roof and Respondent's personnel did not want to use the flashings supplied with them. Mr. Gordon agreed to the change. The tile was custom ordered for this job and took some time to arrive. When it did, it was installed by a subcontractor under arrangement with the Respondent. Respondent never came to inspect or supervise the work of the installers, who he was paying by the piece, after his last visit when the mopping of the tar and felt was completed. Mr. Gordon was there every day and never saw Respondent during the entire installation. Respondent admits that paying by the piece for work of this kind may not be the best way to do it. The actual installation of the tile took approximately three weeks or more during which time the installers frequently complained about the way the roof was cut. The tile manufacturer sent a representative out to examine it. This individual indicated the roof was OK. When the installation was complete, there were 16 yards of tile debris left on the ground around the house. When no effort was made by the roofers to clean it up, Mr. Gordon repeatedly called Respondent's office to complain, and it took approximately two weeks before anyone came out to pick it up. Even then, the debris was merely placed in one large pile in the front yard and neither Respondent nor his subcontractor ever came back to remove it. Mr. Gordon had it removed at his own expense. The contract between Mr. Gordon and Respondent did not specifically provide for debris removal and Respondent claims this work is generally accomplished by the general contractor. No evidence to contradict this claim was presented by Petitioner. It was also noted that the installers mixed the colored cement used in the roofing in the garage and got it all over that area. No effort was made to clean it up before departure. Other deficiencies in installation included uneven installation of tile on the West side of the house. The tiles ran zigzag in their rows. Colored cement was splashed on the soffits; the color of the caps was irregular due to improper mixing of oxide for the cement; and the cap tiles were raised. Several months after installation, holes were discovered under tiles which were lifting up, and there was a leak in the roof near a skylight. Because he was dissatisfied with the roofing job he got, prior to closing, Mr. Gordon notified the bank financing the project that he was withholding $1,000 from the amount due the Respondent. He paid Respondent the balance. Because of personal problems unrelated to this matter, Mr. Gordon wad unable to take any further action for several months, during which time he heard nothing from the Respondent. He was, however, still dissatisfied with the roofing job and ultimately called Respondent to come fix a leak which had developed around a skylight. He received no response to that call and Respondent never showed up. Somewhat later, Mr. Gordon received a letter from a collection agency demanding the thousand dollars he had withheld. Mr. Gordon responded with pictures of the roofing job done by the Respondent and didn't hear anything further about it from either the agency or Respondent. Thereafter, Mr. Gordon filed a complaint with the Department and after that, Mr. Byer, hired by Respondent, came out to the Gordon house to fix the leak and to attempt to fix the discoloration. Mr. Byer removed the loose tiles and re-cemented the caps. Instead of replacing the cement, he painted with a substance which matched the color, but which will last only eight years. The roof is now sound and water tight, but due to the holes in some tiles, the mismatching of colors, and the zigzag courses, it is, to Mr. Gordon, esthetically unsatisfactory. Mr. Gordon has called in another roofer who indicated that the existing problems cannot be fixed. To correct the problem would require reroofing. Respondent's job was also considered unsatisfactory by Mr. Hurlston, the Department inspector who looked at the job in mid February, 1988. In his opinion, the work was sloppy, the tile has been "stretched", the lines are not straight, there are holes between the tiles, the "mud" around the roof ridge is not nesting properly, and some field tile are also raised and not nesting properly. Taken together, the workmanship is poor. It might be acceptable in a project home but not in a custom home as this is. In Mr. Hurlston's opinion, the failure to continuously supervise and correct errors as they occurred shows indifference to the job and constitutes gross negligence. In his opinion, the defects in the finished job are directly attributable to a lack of supervision by the Respondent, and it is so found. Respondent contends the job was done according to the installation specifications supplied by the manufacturer. He claims that the irregularity problem starts with the first three rows of tile and once they are down, the course is set. Correcting problems every couple of rows results in irregular lines and since every 5th line is nailed, if it is not in straight, it's too late to change without removing the whole roof. Assuming, arguendo, this is so, removal may well be the only appropriate course of action open if the installation is not right, and Respondent should have done it if necessary. Mr. Eckert also claims that the loose tiles discovered by Mr. Hurlston were, for the most part, caused by people walking around on the roof. A 10% loose tile rate, as evidenced here, is considered acceptable by the manufacturer. Mr. Hurlston agrees and it is so found. Respondent claims no knowledge of any problem with Mr. Gordon except for the fact that Gordon owes him $1,000. In light of Mr. Gordon's testimony that he called Respondent repeatedly to get him to come out, this is not likely. He has a policy that if a client owes him money, he won't correct any problems with the job until he is paid in full. Nonetheless, he sent Mr. Byer to make any corrections necessary in this case with the instructions to "do anything necessary to make him [Gordon] happy." Byer worked on the Gordon house for about three weeks during which time he replaced the V ridges by re-mortaring it and straightening crooked tiles. As the work progressed, Mr. Gordon seemed happy and indicated the work looked better. At no time did Gordon tell Byer to hurry or to abandon the job. When it was complete, however, Gordon told Byer that though he liked what Byer had done, Respondent would either reimburse him or he'd have his license. In light of his relationship with Gordon, the fact that Gordon has indicated he wants the roof replaced, and Gordon's alleged comment that he'd either be reimbursed or have Respondent's license, Respondent does not believe anything he could do short of replacing the roof, something he will not do, would satisfy Gordon. Other than sending Mr. Byer out to make corrections, he did nothing. It is obvious, however, that the only way to correct the problem of appearance is to remove the tile and start again. Respondent is unwilling to do this. By Final Order dated February 4, 1987, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed a fine of 1,000.00 on Respondent for gross negligence and incompetence demonstrated on a roofing job accomplished by him and his firm in 1980 and 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Charles J. Eckert's registration as a roofer be suspended for three months but that the suspension not be implemented and he be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe; that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Craig Myrick, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles J. Eckert 2515 16th Avenue Drive East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director CILB Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed specialty contractor in the State of Florida. He holds license number RX 0034241. He holds this license in his personal name. He does business as Rex Hawley Aluminum Contractor, of which he is the sole proprietor. He is not the qualifying agent for this entity. He is licensed in Pasco County, Florida, as a registered aluminum specialty contractor only. Respondent entered the aluminum contracting business in 1973. At that time, he bought shares in his brother-in-law's business, Dun-rite, Inc., which was then engaged in aluminum contracting. Respondent is one of 70 directors of the board of the Aluminum Association of Florida, which consists of 3000 members. He is the Secretary and Treasurer, as well as chair of the Code and Compliance Committee, of the Pasco County and Hernando County chapters of this trade association. From time to time, Herbert Wade ("Skip") Hunter works as an independent contractor for Respondent. Mr. Hunter initially met with Joyce E. Hamer in September, 1986, to begin negotiations concerning improvements to her mobile home in Pasco County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hunter acted as a duly authorized agent for Respondent when dealing with Ms. Hamer; however, Mr. Hunter had apparent but not actual authority to enter into a contract, on Respondent's behalf, to re-roof Ms. Hamer's mobile home with shingles. Mr. Hunter eventually submitted to Ms. Hamer a written proposal for the job. The proposal called for, among other things, a panel or pan roof, which is made of aluminum. Ms. Hamer never acted on this proposal. After several months, Mr. Hunter concluded that Ms. Hamer had no interest in the proposal that he had made. In February, 1987, Ms. Hamer contacted Mr. Hunter and expressed interest in the improvements that they had earlier discussed. Negotiations soon resulted in a new written proposal, which Ms. Hamer accepted on February 14, 1987. The new proposal differed from the old one in that, among other things, it called for a shingle roof rather than the more expensive pan roof. This provision was consistent with Ms. Hamer's concern during negotiations over the price of the job. Respondent had never met or communicated with Ms. Hamer prior to her acceptance of the second proposal. He was unaware that Mr. Hunter had proposed a shingle roof until Mr. Hunter returned to the office with the contract, which by that time had been signed by both parties. The contract was signed on February 14, 1987, which was a Saturday. On the following Monday or Tuesday, February 16 or 17, 1987, Respondent visited Ms. Hamer for the purpose of discussing her choice of roof. The parties disagree as to what was said during this discussion. Ms. Hamer testified that she had left the choice of roof to Mr. Hunter and that he selected shingles. Her testimony was unclear as to the purpose of Respondent's visit, although she implied that it was in preparation for the commencement of construction. Respondent testified that when he learned from Mr. Hunter that he had agreed to re-roof with shingles, Respondent told Mr. Hunter that they could not do such work. Respondent testified that he visited Ms. Hamer expressly for the purpose of convincing her that she should select a pan roof instead of shingles. Ms. Hamer's testimony is not credible on the selection of roofing materials. Her finances were tight. The job could not begin until she received a bank loan for the improvements. She had borrowed just enough to cover the improvements. The pan roof cost $2000 more than the shingle roof. Ms. Hamer naturally would have preferred the less expensive shingle roof, especially given her expressed preference for the appearance of shingles. On the other hand, Respondent's interests were better served by the installation of the more expensive pan roof, which he could do with his built-in profit margin. Respondent believed that he could not lawfully perform the shingle re-roofing job. Based on these facts, as well as the relative demeanor and credibility of the parties, as set forth below, the greater weight of the evidence supports Respondent's version that he tried to convince Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, but was unsuccessful. Ms. Hamer had not lived in the subject mobile home at any time material hereto. When she first met Mr. Hunter, she was living with her elderly and infirm mother in a mobile home next door to the subject mobile home. Ms. Hamer desired the improvements so that she and her mother could move into Ms. Hamer's mobile home. Ms. Hamer testified that her mobile home was in habitable condition at the time of the negotiations. She expressly testified that the roof did not leak prior to the work performed by Respondent, although, after repeated questioning on this point, she admitted on cross examination that one wall in the bedroom had a single spot showing water damage prior to February, 1987. Respondent and Mr. Hunter disputed Ms. Hamer's testimony in this regard. They testified that the roof over the back bedroom showed evidence of serious leaking prior to the commencement of work. Mr. Hunter testified that the day that Ms. Hamer signed the contract they went into the back bedroom and discussed the water leakage from the roof and wall. He noted that the carpet was soaked and there were water stains on the ceiling. He also saw a plastic sheet on the bed. Respondent testified to seeing the same conditions later, but prior to the commencement of work. Respondent testified that the window frame in the bedroom was rotten. This conflict in testimony must also be resolved in favor of Respondent. Part of the reason is Ms. Hamer's demeanor and general credibility as a witness, as set forth below. In addition, Ms. Hamer testified reluctantly to any prior water damage in her bedroom. Although appearing to understand the questions, she tried on three or more occasions to avoid testifying to preexisting water damage to the wall. Ms. Hamer testified that she replaced the roof because it was seven years old and she wanted to coordinate it with the rest of the addition. She testified that when she first bought the mobile home she intended to replace the roof when it wore out with one of a lighter color in order to lower her cooling bills. She felt that seven years was the life expectancy of the roof. Respondent disputed whether the new shingles were lighter in color than the old shingles. Given her tight financial situation, Ms. Hamer probably would not have replaced the roof until it was necessary to do so--that is, when it began leaking. It is less likely that she would have prematurely replaced a serviceable roof merely for the sake of appearances or marginal savings on her cooling bills. On the other hand, Mr. Hunter's credibility on the issue of preexisting water damage was enhanced when he testified frankly on cross examination that he did not notice, prior to the re-roofing, all of the damage depicted in Petitioner's photographs. If he were lying, he would presumably have seized the opportunity to embellish the extent of preexisting interior damage. The work commenced as soon as Ms. Hamer received her loan proceeds, which was a few days after she signed the contract. The loan itself was based on an appraisal that was performed on January 22, 1987, and delivered on February 2, 1987. The appraisal found the value of the proposed improvements to be $17,399, which is considerably in excess of the $15,754 price of the first proposal (which included the pan roof) or the $13,895 price of the accepted proposal. Assuming that Ms. Hamer did not obtain the appraisal on the basis of the older proposal, the fair market value of the work performed by Respondent was about $3500 more than he charged her. On February 16, 1987, Kustom Koncrete applied for and received a building permit for the concrete work, which included the screened enclosure floor, a ramp to the carport, a carport floor, and the driveway. On February 18, 1987, C & H Jordan applied for and received a building permit for the electrical work. On February 25, 1987, Southern Pools applied for and received a building permit for the installation of the pre-plumbed spa. On the same date, Dun-Rite, Inc. applied for and received a building permit for the addition of screen walls. Dun-Rite, Inc. is the name that the Pasco County Building Department used for Respondent when issuing building permits. Respondent did not mark up any of the subcontractors' invoices in order to make a profit on their labor and materials. When inspecting the concrete foundation laid by Kustom Koncrete on February 18, 1987, Mr. Roger Groover, a building inspector for the Pasco County Building Department, noticed re-roofing activity for which no permit had been issued. He immediately issued a stop-work order. Respondent then applied for a building permit on Ms. Hamer's behalf, using a letter dated February 17, 1987, in which she had appointed him as her agent to obtain a permit to install shingles on her home. On February 18, 1987, a building permit for re-roofing was issued showing that the owner was the contractor. The testimony is in conflict concerning the circumstances surrounding the original re-roofing job. The dispute arises over what was agreed to at the meeting between Respondent and Ms. Hamer on February 16 or 17, 1987. Respondent testified that when he was unsuccessful in persuading Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, even after he offered to do the work at his cost, he told her that he could not do the work. However, he testified that he agreed to obtain the shingles for Ms. Hamer and deliver them to the work site, but they would be installed by laborers who, although normally working for Respondent, would be working for her and not him. Consistent with Respondent's version, it was during this visit that Ms. Hamer signed the above-described February 17 letter. Respondent testified that he warned Ms. Hamer at that time that he would not be responsible for the roof. Respondent testified that he agreed to pay for the labor and materials on Ms. Hamer's behalf and then back out the amount of these payments from the contract price. Ms. Hamer disputed all of Respondent's testimony on this point. This dispute in critical testimony is the most difficult to resolve. Respondent's version lacks any internal inconsistencies. It is therefore necessary to rely upon the demeanor of the witnesses and their general credibility. Respondent and Mr. Hunter were frank and straightforward in their testimony. Not all of their testimony placed Respondent in the most favorable light and they recognized this fact. Ms. Hamer, by way of contrast, was evasive. Her answers frequently failed to respond to the question, even after warning. She contradicted herself many times in her own testimony. For instance, she testified unequivocally that Respondent was present when the contract was signed, then testified that he was not. She testified that she had not met Respondent prior to the signing of the contract, then testified that she had. She testified that she had not spoken with Respondent in the last eight months before the hearing, then testified that she had spoken with him within a couple of months prior to the hearing. Ms. Hamer's credibility was also damaged by her unsuccessful attempt to impose upon Respondent the responsibility for paying two invoices from Suburban Propane. Ms. Hamer produced these invoices from a carefully maintained notebook that she brought with her to the hearing. She testified that Respondent improperly failed to pay these bills. Upon further examination of the witness, it became clear that one of these items was for the filling of the tank that provided the fuel to heat her spa--an item for which Respondent was clearly not responsible. After much evasion, Ms. Hamer finally admitted that the second invoice was not to purchase the original propane tank but to replace it with a larger tank. Ms. Hamer's earlier testimony regarding Respondent's unsatisfied responsibilities as to these invoices appears to have been offered with either reckless indifference or conscious disregard to the facts. For these reasons, I expressly find Respondent's version of the facts in Paragraph 18 to be true. The re-roofing began on February 17, 1987, and was completed a few days later. There was no rain for the next six weeks. Although all the other work was completed during the greater portion of this time, Ms. Hamer did not move into the mobile home and offered no reason as to why she did not. One likely inference, given the circumstances, is that the interior had suffered such damage prior to the work that the mobile home was uninhabitable. When it finally rained on March 28, 1987, the roof leaked extensively. After several complaints from Ms. Hamer, Respondent contracted with Rathel's Roofing to re-roof the mobile home at Respondent's expense. Respondent paid Rathel's Roofing $1400 for the new roof. The re-roofing was accomplished on or about April 29, 1987. Ms. Hamer testified that there continues to be some leakage between the screened room and the main portion of the mobile home However, no evidence established the extent of this problem or that it was the responsibility of Respondent rather than the roofer, whom Ms. Hamer testified did all that she asked to be done. Mr. Hunter, who also works as a sales agent for one or more pool contractors in Pasco County, testified that it is the practice in Pasco County for a pool contractor to enter into a contract with a customer for the construction of a pool and then to enter into subcontracts with electrical and plumbing subcontractors for the electrical and plumbing work. Respondent testified that pool contractors in Pasco County and throughout the state customarily contract to build screened enclosures, even though not licensed to do so, and then subcontract the construction of the enclosure an aluminum contractor such as himself.
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.
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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this case are those promoted by the second amended administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against the Respondent, David W. Crosby. Briefly, the basic allegations are that the Respondent granted to James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roof Systems, the unlimited opportunity to obtain building permits under the Respondent's contracting license. This arrangement, it is alleged, was in the face of a circumstance in which James Crosby was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, nor had the Respondent qualified U.S. Seamless Roof Systems with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further alleged that between August 1982 and in or about 1985 James Crosby operated a roofing contracting business in St. Johns County, Florida, and in St. Augustine, Florida, and utilized the Respondent's authorization to obtain certain building permits and that James Crosby then performed roofing work authorized by those permits. By reason of this arrangement Respondent is said to have violated Sections 489.119 and 489.129(1)(e) (f) (g) (j) and (m), Florida Statutes. There are additional allegations of similar nature pertaining to work in Brooksville and Inverness, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Facts found based upon responses to requests for admissions propounded from Petitioner to the Respondent (see Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence) Respondent's name is David W. Crosby. Respondent is a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number CC CO 15442. At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number CC CO 15442. Respondent's license number CC CO 145442 is active for the period expiring June 30, 1987. In or about August 1982, Respondent issued an unlimited authorization, addressed "To whom It May Concern," which authorized all building departments to issue roofing permits to Respondent's brother, James Crosby. Said James Crosby was operating a roofing business in the period 1982 to 1985, in and about the St. Johns County and St. Augustine area. On or about January 13, 1983, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems obtained permit number 12102 from the City of St. Augustine. Said permit, number 12102, was obtained to repair a roof for Zorayda Castle of 83 King Street, St. Augustine, Florida. On or about February 3, 1983, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, obtained permit number 12122 from the City of St. Augustine. Said permit, number 12122, was obtained to reroof the residence of Zorayda Castle of 83 Ring Street, St. Augustine, Florida. On or about February 24, 1983, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, obtained permit number 12158 from the City of St. Augustine. Said permit, number 12158, was obtained to reroof the residence of Lillian Perpall of 67 Abbott Street, St. Augustine, Florida. On or about May 17, 1983, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, obtained permit number 12288 from the City of St. Augustine. Said permit, number 12288, was obtained to reroof the residence of Emily M. Alexander of 20 Cuna Street, St. Augustine, Florida. On or about May 2, 1983, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, contracted with Lawrence Golden to repair the roof at Golden's residence at 17 Bay View Drive, St. Augustine, Florida, for a contract price of $985. On or about March 28, 1984, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, used contractors license number CC CO 15442 to obtain permit number 3781-81 from St. Johns County Florida. Said permit, number 3781-81, was obtained to reroof the residence of Burton Chase of St. Johns County, Florida. On or about March 28, 1984, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, used contractors license number CC CO 15442 to obtain permit number 3780-81 from St. Johns County, Florida. Said permit, number 3780-81, was obtained to reroof the residence of Fred Jensen of St. Johns County, Florida. On or about May 7, 1984, said James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roofing Systems, contracted with Ceal Butler to repair Butler's roof on his residence at Rt. 3, Box 56W3, St. Augustine, Florida, for the contract price of $1,335. Said contract referenced in number 20 above, was executed on a printed form bearing contractors license number CC CO 15442. At no time relevant hereto did Respondent qualify the roofing business, American Roof and Waterproofing Company and/or American Roofing and Waterproofing Company. Facts found based upon testimony at final hearing and exhibits admitted at final hearing James Crosby is also known as James A. Crosby, Jr., and Jim Crosby. On May 17, 1982, James A. Crosby, Jr., who held registered roofing contracting license number RC 0029375, voluntarily relinquished that license in Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. James A. Crosby, Jr., DPR Case No. 006237. On June 30, 1987, the Construction Industry Licensing Board, in accordance with that voluntary relinquishment, entered a final order approving and accepting the relinquishment. See Petitioner's composite Exhibit 3. James Crosby, in those instances described in the fact finding related to roofing contracting activities, was unlicensed and therefore not authorized to practice contracting, to include roofing contracting. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence, a February 7, 1986, notice to cease and desist in the case of State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation vs. James Crosby, DPR Case No. 62490, in which it is indicated that James Crosby does not hold the necessary license to do roofing work or other forms of contracting contemplated by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit 5 is a copy of the general authorization which Respondent directed "To Whom It May Concern" in August 1982 authorizing James Crosby ". . . to pull permits for all roof work done by U.S. Seamless Roof Systems, St. Augustine, Florida." A copy of Respondent's certified roofing contractors license was attached to this authorization. This authorization has never been withdrawn and still remains on file with the City of St. Augustine, Florida, Building Department. At all relevant times related to the second amended administrative complaint, the City of St. Augustine, Florida, by ordinance, had adopted the Southern Building Code, which required building permits to be issued by the City before James Crosby or the companies under whose name he was doing business could undertake the various projects that are contemplated by the second amended administrative complaint. In January 1983, James Crosby entered into a contract with Wallace Mussallem for the roof repair in a tourist attraction in downtown St. Augustine, Florida, known as Zorayda Castle. Price of the repairs was approximately $6500. Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence pertains to various building permit applications and for certificate of appropriateness which James Crosby filed related to the Mussallem job. Crosby was operating under the name U.S. Seamless Roofing Co. as depicted in the aforementioned composite exhibit. Crosby completed the job and was paid the full amount of the contract. Crosby warranted his repair work for a period of ten years. During the initial two years, the roof did not leak; however, in 1986 a number of leaks occurred in the roof. Mussallem was unable to locate James Crosby to fix the roof and Mussallem had another roofer effect repairs and spent $3000 to have one section of the roof repaired. As of the time of the hearing, when Mussallem gave his testimony, part of the roof was still leaking and needed to be fixed. Respondent was never involved in the transaction between Mussallem and James Crosby, beyond giving permission to James Crosby to pull building permits from the City of St. Augustine, Florida. On March 4, 1984, Mr. and Mrs. William Blanchard entered into a contract with James Crosby, d/b/a American Roof and Waterproofing Company. James Crosby's associate, Basil R. Boone, was the person who estimated the job; however, the contract was with James Crosby. A copy of that contract can be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 14 admitted into evidence. It calls for the repair of the roof on the Blanchards' residence in St. Augustine, Florida. On April 5, 1985, James Crosby applied for a building permit from the City of St. Augustine to do the roofing work at the Blanchard home, and on April 30, 1985, that building permit was issued. Petitioner's composite Exhibit 8 is a copy of the application for permit and the permit. The price of the contract was $1575. James Crosby was paid for the roofing work. In the course of this transaction, William Blanchard had no occasion to deal with the Respondent. On May 7, 1984, James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roof Systems contracted with Ceal Butler of St. Johns County, Florida, to do roof repair work on a mobile home belonging to Mr. Butler. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15 admitted into evidence. The contract price was $1335 and Crosby guaranteed the work for ten years. May l8, 1984, James Crosby, as referred to in the check written to the Butlers as "Jim Crosby," was paid the contract amount. The contract form that was utilized in the Butler case referred to the Florida certified contracting number which pertains to the Respondent. Notwithstanding this reference, Respondent did not involve himself with this project. The Butlers immediately began to experience problems with the roofing work done by James Crosby. There were leaks in the roof repair work. The Butlers made numerous requests to have James Crosby honor the warranty, but the repairs were not made. Eventually, another roofer other than James Crosby had to make the repairs on the roof. Lillian Perpall owned a home in St. Augustine, Florida, and contracted with James Crosby to do roofing repair work at her residence. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. James Crosby was doing business in this instance as U.S. Seamless Roof Systems. The contract price was $4875 and the project carried a ten-year guarantee. On February 24, 1983, in furtherance of the conduct of the project, James Crosby applied for a building permit which was granted that same day. A copy of the application and building permit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit James Crosby was paid the full amount of the contract price for concluding the roofing repair work. Within a year after the work had been done, there was a leak in the roof and James Crosby came and put another coat of material on the roof in response to the complaint of Ms. Perpall. In the last eight or ten months, the back porch area where roof repairs had been made began to leak. Ms. Perpall has tried to contact James Crosby about that problem and has been unable to. In particular, she tried to make contact at the telephone number listed on the contract document that was signed. On the evidence presented, it is found that the Respondent did not participate in the roofing repair work at the Perpall residence, On October 14, 1982, James Crosby, d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roof Systems contracted with Edward Carriere to perform room repair work on Carriere's residence in St. Augustine, Florida. The contract amount was $5100 and the contract included a ten-year guarantee. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 18 admitted into evidence. This contract format bears Respondent's Florida certified contractor's number. In furtherance of this work, James Crosby applied for a building permit from the City of St. Augustine on September 28, 1982, and that permit was issued that same day. A copy of the application and permit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence. A second building permit related to this work was issued on October 27, 1982, from the City of St. Augustine as acknowledged by James Crosby and is found as part of the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 11. From the beginning, following the work, Carriere has experienced problems with the repair work. These problems are leaks in the roof. They have caused damage in the kitchen and living room area of the Carriere home. James Crosby responded to complaints about the room leaking, but did not fix the problem. The roof leaked from 1983 to 1985. By 1985, Carriere was unable to locate James Crosby to fix the leaking roof. Being unsuccessful in locating James Crosby, Carriere hired another roofer to fix the problem in January 1986. This cost an additional amount of approximately $5800. Carriere never dealt with the Respondent in the roof repair project at his home. On May 2, 1983, Lawrence G. Golden contracted with a representative of U.S. Seamless Roof Systems, the company of James Crosby, to have roof repair work done at the Golden residence in St. Augustine, Florida. A copy of the contract entered into with the company be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 19 admitted into evidence. The contract amount was $985 and the work carried a ten-year guarantee. Lawrence Golden paid the man $985 called for by the contract. Mr. Golden had problems with the roof repair work with the advent of heavy rains, in that the roof leaked. After numerous attempts to contact the company, James Crosby came to examine the nature of the complaint. James Crosby did not fix the problems with the leaking roof or cause them to be fixed until Golden had made a complaint to the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation. James Crosby did not obtain a building permit for the roof repair work, nor was a building permit obtained by anyone other than James Crosby. Golden did not deal with the Respondent in the transaction involving the roof repair. On July 15, 1982, Wilbur Lane contracted with James Crosby d/b/a U.S. Seamless Roof Systems to perform roof repair work on Lane's residence in St. Johns County, Florida. The roof repair contract carried the certified roofing contractor license number associated with the Respondent. The amount of the contract price was $1300 and the work carried a ten-year guarantee. James Crosby completed the construction work and received the full payment. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 20 admitted into evidence. Although James Crosby was paid the amount contemplated by the contract, the roof repair work was not successful. After the project was undertaken, Lane experienced leaks inside of his home and made numerous attempts to try to contact James Crosby to take care of the problem. Crosby did attempt to fix the leaks, but failed in the attempt. Eventually Mr. Lane was unable to contact Crosby to continue the effort at rectifying the problem and Mr. Lane had to complete his own repair work on the roof to stop the leaks. Lane never had occasion to deal with the Respondent in this project. 35, The Department of Professional Regulation investigator Augostino A. Lucente investigated the complaint that had been filed by Lawrence Golden and spoke with the Respondent. Respondent indicated that he did not know anything about Mr. Golden or his problem or the fact that roofing repair work had been undertaken by U.S. Seamless Roof Systems. Respondent did indicate to Lucente that James Crosby was using Respondent's certified roofing contractor's license to obtain building permits. Respondent stated that he was trying to do his brother a favor by setting up a company for him in the St. Augustine area. In actuality, James Crosby may not be the brother of Respondent and may in fact be Respondent's cousin. Respondent told Lucente that he had issued the authorization letter, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, and that he had intended to open up a business in the St. Augustine area and to put James Crosby in charge. After about six weeks, Respondent said that he determined that he did not want to do anything with the St. Augustine situation and left everything as it was. This decision came about in September 1982. Respondent also denied any knowledge of the Carriere contract. On October 22, 1986, Petitioner took action against the Respondent in DPR Case Nos. 59109 and 59115 by the entry of a final order disciplining the license which is at issue in this proceeding. A copy of that final order and the underlying administrative complaint may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Albritton was licensed as a certified roofing contractor and held license number CC C015182. Mr. Albritton was the qualifying agent for Albritton Roofing, Inc. On or about May 30, 1985, Albritton Roofing, Inc. submitted a proposal to Inter-Urban Developments, Inc., to install a tile roof on the single-family residence which was being built for Ernani and Giorgina Grilli in Cape Coral, Florida. Inter-Urban Developments, Inc., was the general contractor for the construction of the custom home being built for Mr. and Mrs. Grilli. The proposal reflected that Albritton Roofing, Inc. was willing to install a roof on the Grilli residence. The roof was to consist of the following: a thirty pound base felt, a ninety pound felt which was to be hot mopped, and a Monier tile roof covering. The tile was to be placed on the roof by using the mud application system. The tiles which had to be cut would be sawed and mitered. The proposed cost of the roof was to be $8,370.00. When the general contractor decided that the tiles could be broken instead of cut, the price was reduced to $7,588.00 The modified proposal was accepted by the general contractor and Albritton Roofing, Inc. It was agreed that the work would be completed in a workmanlike manner, according to the standard practices. In the City of Cape Coral at the time the roof was installed on the Grilli residence in 1985, the standard practice of local roofers was to apply tiles over a thirty pound base felt and a hot mopped ninety pound felt roof with a mud system. The tiles were decorative in nature and were used to keep the sun off the true roof, the hot mopped, ninety pound felt. Fewer tiles were used per square under this method of application and a head lap of one and one-half inches was used during the tile application. Although Cape Coral was without a building code, the head lap requirement was set forth in the county building code. In addition, pursuant to local practices, tiles were marked and broken with a trowel when it was necessary to use a smaller tile. Instead of sawing and mitering the tiles together for a finished look, the mud was used over the top of the tiles in the areas where they were to be joined. Upon completion of the installation, the roof was accepted by the general contractor and the owners of the property. A three-year guarantee of all materials and workmanship furnished by Albritton Roofing, Inc. was issued on October 28, 1985. The guarantee expressly excepted acts of God or accidents from its provisions. On March 18, 1987, the owners of the residence had a pre-installation inspection of the roof made by the installers of a solar pool heating system. During the inspection, it was discovered that many of the roof tiles were loose. The owners were immediately informed of the situation and were advised that the solar heating company would not be responsible for the condition of the roof. After the solar pool heating system was installed on the roof, the owners notified the Respondent Albritton that the roof tiles were loose, and that they wanted Albritton Roofing, Inc. to honor its guarantee. When one of the Respondent's employees went to view the roof, he discovered that solar panels had been installed on the roof. When the employee saw that changes had been made to the roof, he leapt to the conclusion that the loose and broken tiles on the roof were caused by the solar heater installers or other people walking on the roof tiles. However, in spite of the belief that the tile damage was not caused by faulty materials or improper workmanship, Albritton Roofing, Inc. replaced a whole pallet of the Monier tiles on the Grilli roof, free of charge on April 28, 1987. After the tiles were replaced by Albritton Roofing, Inc., the owners continued to experience problems with loose and sliding tiles. In July 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Grilli made a written demand upon Albritton Roofing, Inc. to honor the guarantee and to properly secure the roof tiles. In response to the written demand, Albritton Roofing, Inc. stated that the tiles had been cemented down as they were supposed to have been, and that the problem of loose tiles was caused by the solar panel installers, who broke the tiles loose from the cement when they walked on the roof. Albritton Roofing, Inc. took the legal position that the repairs needed were not caused by faulty materials or workmanship. Thus, the guarantee did not apply in this situation. In August 1987, the roofing inspector for Cape Coral completed a roof inspection at the Grilli residence. It was the inspector's opinion that every section of the roof had loose tile. From his visual inspection, the inspector was able to observe that tile had begun to slide down past the two inch head lap on various areas of the roof. Many of the hip and ridge tiles were loose. In response to the inspector's written report, which opined that the mud might not have been placed at the proper locations under the tiles or that there might have been a problem with the mud mixture, an inspection was completed of the roof by C.A. Wunder, Jr. of C.A. Wunder Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Albritton Roofing, Inc. In September 1987, Mr. Wunder completed his inspection by climbing a ladder and checking tiles within arms's reach in three areas. The inspection revealed that tiles were loose in large areas of the roof. An examination of some of the loose tiles revealed that all of these tiles had mud under them and that the bond between the mud and tile had been broken. It was suggested that people walking on the roof or strong winds provided uplift which broke the bond between the tiles and the mud. On December 7, 1987, a roof inspection was completed by D.H. Gracey on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Grilli. Mr. Gracey is a roofing consultant who testifies in litigation matters as an expert witness. Dr. Gracey observed that sixty percent of the tiles were loose and had no bond against slippage or wind uplift. Another inspection of the roof was conducted by Jack Hurlston, a certified roofing contractor hired by the Department on August 2, 1989. During the inspection, approximately seventy-five percent of the tiles were loose due to lack of adhesion. In some areas, one bed of mud was used to hold two tiles. Insufficient mud was used in setting tile caps on hips. Hip caps had been stretched leaving insufficient head lap. The proper way to apply the mud on roof tiles in Cape Coral in 1985, was to place the mud about halfway down each tile about four or five inches from the bottom of the tile. Sufficient mud beds had to be placed underneath the tiles as well in order to attach them to the roof. The Respondent Albritton was on site while the tile was being installed on the Grilli residence in 1985. The employee of Albritton Roofing, Inc. who installed the tile on the Grilli residence failed to consistently follow the Respondent's instructions that mud be placed on each tile in a certain spot before the tile was bonded to the roof. The installer's failure to follow instructions for the application of the mud was misconduct which contributed to the roof's decline. In addition, the use of one mud bed to hold two tiles in some areas was a defect in workmanship under the applicable local standards during the time the roof was applied. The owners of the residence have been harmed by the misconduct in that they have loose tiles which continue to slide down the roof and occasionally fall into the yard. The tiles will eventually fail to protect the ninety pound felt from sun damage. The tile roof was applied for this purpose in addition to its cosmetic benefit. No notice of mitigation or aggravation was submitted to the Hearing Officer at the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing,, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, as the qualifying agent, be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to adequately control construction activities which resulted in misconduct by the tile installers who failed to properly apply the mud beneath the tiles in some areas of the roof. As a result, there are loose tiles on the roof which were caused by the faulty workmanship. That the Respondent be found not guilty of all of the other alleged violations in the Administrative Complaint. That the Respondent be required to pay a $500.00 fine as set forth in Section 21E-17.001(19)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The reason the lower end of the fine scale is recommended by the Hearing Officer is that the misconduct by the installers was not readily observable by the Respondent during his inspection of the tile roof cover. In addition, the Respondent consistently acted in good faith in his attempts to negotiate with the owners of the roof. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioners's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1 - #3. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Inconsistent with other, accepted testimony of other witnesses. See HO #6. The relevant point, that loose roof tiles were discovered in March 1987, is accepted. Accept that Albritton issued a three-year guarantee. See HO #5. Accept that tiles were replaced on the roof after March 1987. See HO #8. Accept that the owners continued to experience problems with loose and sliding tiles, and made a written demand to Albritton to honor the warranty. See HO #9. Reject the proposed finding that replacement tiles were a different color. Not proved by competent substantial evidence. Rejected. Improper lay opinion. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accept the first two sentences. See HO #11 and #12. Reject third sentence. Irrelevant. Reject fourth sentence. Lack of proper factual foundation on which to base his conclusion. Accept that D.H. Gracey examined the roof. See HO #13. Reject his opinion that the tiles were laid over a sub-roof. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Reject the opinion of D.H. Gracey. Mr. Gracey approached the problems regarding the roof as if it were a product's warranty case. His opinions did not aid the trier of fact in the determinations which had to be made in these proceedings. His opinions that the tiles were not installed as per the manufacturer's recommendations were irrelevant. Reject the first sentence. Irrelevant. Accept the second sentence. See HO #13. Rejected. Irrelevant. Reject that sixty percent of the tiles were loose. The rest of the paragraph is accepted. See HO #14. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not probative of anything. Irrelevant. Rejected. Speculative. Rejected. Irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding. Accepted. See HO #19. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to proof established at hearing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #16 - #18. Copies furnished: Andrea Bateman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas M. Brondstetter, Esquire 1617 Hendry Street Post Office Box 2397 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
