Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent LARRY DAVID COMES, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered specialty contractor and held license number RX00400762. Mr. Comes is the qualifying agent for D & L Enterprises. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent CHARLES J. GOREE was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified general contractor and held license number CG C007621. Mr. Goree is the qualifying agent for CJC Incorporated. In the beginning of the year 1985, the Island Village Association decided to reroof all six buildings located in the condominium project. At the time of the decision, all of the roofs were leaking. The existing roofs had been repaired and patched numerous times since the condominiums were built in 1973. On February 27, 1985, the Respondents COMES and GOREE submitted a joint proposal to the association to remove the existing built-up roof, apply a Neoprene/Hypalon roof, and remove and reshingle the mansard roof for $19,865.00. On April 15, 1985, a written contract was entered into between Island Village Condominium Association and David L. Comes, d/b/a D & L Enterprises, as contractor for the reroofing of Building "C." The Contract required the contractor to furnish all materials and labor to remove the existing built-up roof. Rotten wood on the deck was to be replaced on a time and materials basis. Damaged scuppers were to be replaced and other scuppers were to be cleaned out by the contractor. The Neoprene/Hypalon system would then be applied to the flat roof and the parapet walls. The mansard roof was to be removed and reshingled. Although Charles J. Goree, d/b/a CJC Incorporated, was not named in the contract, the omission was an oversight. At all times during the course of the reroofing project, the Respondent GOREE was responsible for the removal of the existing built-up roof and the application of new shingles to the mansard roof. The Respondent COMES was responsible for the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. The reroofing project was a joint undertaking in which Respondents GOREE and COMES exercised equal authority, joint control, or right of control. The Respondents had a community of interest in the performance of the contract with the association. Respondents GOREE and COMES were familiar with what was required of each of them under the verbal joint venture agreement as they had conducted business in the same manner over an extended period of time on several projects. On May 10, 1985, Respondent GOREE applied for and received a building permit for the reroofing of Building "C" at Island Condominiums. During the removal of the built-up roof, GOREE observed "an absolute mess and disaster." The roof had been patched in various ways on numerous occasions. GOREE observed a few "T nails" in a piece of metal stripping picked up with shovels on the roof. The "T nails" discovered were the type which are shot into materials from a nail gun. (See GOREE Exhibit #2) They are not used to secure plywood on a deck because of their short length. Another "T nail," such as GOREE's Exhibit 2, was found by GOREE lying on the area of the roof by the air conditioners. This area of the existing roof was not removed or disturbed during the reroofing process. In the application of his common sense and knowledge of good construction practices and in light of the material in which the "T nails' were located, Respondent GOREE was not put on notice that these "T nails" may have been used to fasten the plywood decking. The type of "T nail" which was used upon plywood roof decking a few years ago in Florida was longer, thicker, and shaped like an elongated wedge. (See GOREE Exhibit 4) None of the "T nails" formerly used for plywood decking were observed by GOREE on the roof. Once the built-up roof was removed, Respondent COMES acted within the terms of the joint venture agreement by applying the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system in full compliance with the specifications as set forth in the contract with Island Village Condominium Association. During the application of the system, COMES and his crew did not observe any conditions on the plywood decking which would alert them to the possibility of any future problems with the system. On May 17, 1985, Mr. Jim Peaks, an Inspector for Brevard County, completed a "dry in" inspection of the roof on Building "C" which had been requested by Respondent GOREE. Mr. Peaks placed a stop order on the project because the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system was not an approved product under the Southern Building Code which he believed was in effect in Brevard County on May 14, 1985. In actuality, the 1982 Standard Building Code was in effect at the time. Upon receipt of the stop order, Respondents COMES and GOREE went to the building department and met with Murray Schmidt, Mr. Peaks' supervisor. Mr. Schmidt had the authority to override Mr. Peaks' stop order. Mr. Schmidt, who was new to the county and his position, discussed the stop order with the Inspector. Mr. Peaks refused to remove his stop order because of the lack of code compliance. Mr. Schmidt verbally allowed the Respondents GORE and COMES to continue to work on the roof. Mr. Peaks was told to investigate the roofing system with the Southern Building Code Conference in Birmingham, Alabama. The Respondents were not notified again as to the status of the stop order, one way or the other. Because the Respondents had been told to continue the work on the roof by Mr. Schmidt, who had the authority to override stop orders, the Respondents reasonably assumed that a stop order was no longer in effect. In fact, the permit had the notation "See Murray" on it after the stop order notation. Upon completion of the project, Respondent COMES contacted the building department and requested a final inspection. In the usual course of dealing between contractors and the building department in Brevard County, a contractor is notified only if there is a problem with the project which needs correction before final approval. Neither COMES or GOREE received notification of a problem. Another recognized, usual course of dealing between a contractor and the building department is that the department notifies an owner or the contractor if a six month permit has expired and a final inspection has not been completed. GOREE was not notified of any permit expiration in this case. Again, the Respondents were given the impression by the inactivity in the building department that business was being conducted in the usual manner. The Respondents believed, based upon past and ongoing dealings with the department, that all of their obligations had been met on the reroofing project. On May 28, 1985, the final payment was received from Island Village Condominium Association and a limited warranty was issued in both Respondents' company names, pursuant to the contract with the association. Shortly after completing the job on Building "C," Respondent COMES was called to repair leaks in the new roof. COMES responded promptly and courteously, and placed the blame for the leakage on various factors such as: (1) The short "T" fasteners had begun popping through the Neoprene/Hypalon and destroyed its ability to prevent water penetration. (2) The roof had an inadequate drain system. (3) The plywood deck was bowed in a concave fashion due to the years of improper weight and excess water on the roof. During a meeting with the board of directors of the association requested by COMES, COMES offered to put on a new roof if the board would install sump pumps to remove standing water. The board rejected COMES offer and authorized the condominium property manager to seek other solutions. The Respondents were not contacted by the board again concerning alternative solutions to the problem. In June of 1986, Mr. Rex Lahr, the condominium property manager, began a review of the roof situation. After consulting with Mr. Tom Butler of the county building department, Mr. Lahr decided that an architect needed to be retained by the association to determine whether a structural deficiency or the new roofing system caused the leaks in the roof. An architect was not hired by the association. A traditional, built- up roof was applied over the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. In the application of the new roof, the drainage system was redone and the flat roof was given pitch, thereby redesigning the roof as well. Mr. Robert B. Hilson, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the Respondents COMES and GOREE failed to properly determine whether the roof deck was in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system. Mr. Robert H. Adams, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the leaks which developed soon after the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon system indicated that the deck was not in a condition to accept the system. Although there is some basis in fact for the opinions rendered by the two experts, their opinions must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) The experts did not personally observe the building, nor was a determination made which would exclude the possibility that the roofing system failed as a result of structural or design defects. (2) There is ample evidence in the case to support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects, as well as latent defects not readily observable to the Respondents at the time the roofing system was applied, and outside the terms of the reroofing contract. Some examples of evidence which support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects are: (1) Mrs. Delores Hammels' testimony that all six buildings had to be reroofed as they all leaked periodically throughout their 12 years of existence; (2) the redesign of the drainage system and the placement of a pitch on the roof by Mr. Roush; (3) the testimony and sketch submitted by Respondent GOREE (GOREE Exhibit #5) which shows that an identical building with a pitch on the roof allows the drainage system, including the internal hidden piping system, to work correctly. The effective redesign of the roof by Mr. Roush confirms this theory as much as, or more than, Mr. Robert H. Adams' theory that the deck was not in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor 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, Bruce D. Gayton, was licensed as a roofing contractor in Florida under license number RC0030867, but at the time of the misconduct alleged herein, the license was delinquent and invalid. Respondent's license was placed on delinquent status for non-renewal when it expired on June 30, 1987 and was considered invalid until reinstated in April, 1988. The Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for the licensing of contractors in this state. On August 27, 1987, John M. Mack and his wife contracted with Respondent, doing business as Roofing Enterprises, to replace the roof on their 70 year old house in Clearwater. The contract called for Respondent to remove the old roof, replace all rotten wood, and install fiberglass shingles as well as all other actions part thereof, including cleanup. For this, the Macks agreed to pay Respondent $2,930.00 to be paid one- third at commencement, one-third when dried in, and the balance due upon completion. The term "dried in" means to cover the roof base with felt and secure it so as to prevent moisture incursion. This constitutes the subsurface for the final roof surface. The contract did not provide a completion date. Respondent guaranteed his work for five years. Respondent started work on September 9, 1989 and was paid the first $1,000.00 by check. He started tearing off the existing roof and five days later, when only one quarter of the existing roof had been removed, requested the second installment of the contract price. Mr. Mack was out of town at the time, but Mrs. Mack gave him a second $1,000.00 check. At that time, far less than one third of the project had been completed. After that second payment was made, Respondent did "minimal work" on the project. He would appear at the job only intermittently and when he did, would leave after only a short while. When Mr. Mack asked about this, Respondent indicated it was too hot to work after 11:00 in the morning. He also complained that because the sub-roof was made of hard, old white pine, it was very difficult to remove the old nails. For several days in early November, 1987, Respondent did not show up for work and Mack's efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. He finally filed a complaint with both the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Professional Regulation. Finally, on November 14, 1987, Respondent came to the work site and left after two hours indicating he had a meeting with other contractors on other jobs. The next day, when Respondent did not show up, Mr. Mack went to his house whereupon Respondent stated he had spent most of the $2,000.00 the Macks had given him on other projects and to pay his workers and did not have enough funds to finish the job. Mr. Archer, the only employee to work on the Mack property has not been paid at all for his work. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack instructed Respondent to do what he could with what was left and when that was gone, he would pay the balance. Though Respondent had previously indicated to Mr. Mack that he had secured all required permits, the day after the above discussion, he stated he had not done so and left the job site to get it without doing any work that day. Over the next 11 days, Respondent spent a total of 20 hours on the job. On November 17, 1987 it rained and because the roof was not secure, water leaked into the house. The following day, Respondent did not arrive for work until 10:00 AM. On November 19, 1987, when Mr. Mack called the lumber yard from which Respondent had ordered the shingles, he was told they were scheduled for delivery COD and were on their way. When they arrived, Mr. Mack refused to accept them and pay for them because he had already paid Respondent $2,000. Respondent, when told of this development, agreed to borrow the money for them from his brother but was unable to do so, and in order to get the job finally done, Mr. Mack agreed to pay approximately $200.00 for them. They were ultimately delivered. The next day, Respondent telephoned Mr. Mack and said he was coming to the site and would stay until the job was done. However, he did not get there until after 10 and left at 3:30 PM with the job incomplete. At 8:00 AM the following morning, Respondent again called Mr. Mack and reported he did not have enough money for the required flashings. He indicated he would come to work and finish up the shingling, but did not show up at all that day. On the day after, Respondent came with his wife who worked with him for a short while. On this occasion, Mack gave Respondent some more money for supplies, but Respondent left again before the job was complete. Respondent neither showed up for work nor called on both the next two days, but on the following day, November 25, 1987, he finally finished up the job except for the gravel roof on the rear house and the front part of the main house. Because the Macks had a tenant in the rear house who they did not want disturbed, they did not permit Respondent to work there, but he did finally finish up the front of the main house roof and the work that was accomplished was done satisfactorily. There was, however, an unused chimney on the main house which Respondent should have removed and roofed over. Instead, he improperly attempted to roof around it and since he was unable to make the area water tight, it resulted in severe leakage into the house which caused damage to several ceilings and some furniture. Throughout the entire course of the work, Respondent applied improper pressure to the Macks. He repeatedly threatened to file for bankruptcy and not complete the work, prompting the Macks to pay him before contractually called for. At the time for final payment, when Mr. Mack indicated he wanted to have the job checked before making that last payment, Respondent became angry and walked off. He has not been seen or heard from since. As a result of Respondent's failure to properly manage his funds and accomplish the job in a timely and professional manner, the Macks have sustained substantial damage to their property and have had to expend additional funds to get the work done properly. Respondent should have identified the unused chimney at the time he bid for the job and provided for its removal. If this would cost more, he should have so indicated. His failure to identify the problem and correct it constitutes negligence since it is impossible to properly roof around such an obstruction without leaks. Based on the information available to him, Mr. Verse, the Department's expert, concluded Respondent was guilty of gross negligence because: He was required to get a permit for this project and failed to do so, He was required to request inspections of the project as it progressed and failed to do so, He took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the job, (roofs are usually replaced in an expedient manner because re-roofing generates exposure of the house and contents to weather conditions), He failed to properly place the felt and thereafter cover it with the final coat in a timely manner (qualified roofers recognize that felt is insufficient roofing to prevent leaking), He diverted funds from this project to others for which they were not intended, He failed to properly supervise his employees, He did not complete the work called for under the contract, He failed to honor his warranty, and He failed to properly remove the old chimney as a part of the re-roofing process. With the exception of the failure to complete the job which was caused by Mr. Mack's refusal to allow Respondent to complete the roofing project on the gravel roof, Respondent's actions as outlined herein constituted gross negligence. In addition, he violated existing local law by failing to get a permit and have the required inspections made; he failed to perform in a timely manner; he diverted funds; he abandoned the job without it being completed; and he failed to honor his warranty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton's, license as a registered roofing contractor be suspended for three years under such provisions for reinstatement as may be deemed appropriate by the Board, and that he be fined $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989 at 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 11th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Gayton 15010 113th Avenue #32 Largo, Florida 34644-4305 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a written reprimand to respondent Elias Davis for failure to pull a permit on a roofing job. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1984.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license should he revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on charges that he violated Ch. 455, Florida Statutes (1979), by (1) abandoning a construction project; making a misleading, deceptive or untrue representation in the practice of his profession; (3) violating local building codes in two instances; and (4) engaging in the business of contracting in a county or municipality without first complying with local licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held registered roofing contractor's license, number RC 0033215, issued by the State of Florida. The license has been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Between October 1, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respondent held an occupational license issued by the County of Indian River, Florida, which enabled him to engage in the business of roofing contracting in that county. However, this occupational license expired on September 30, 1980. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9). In February, 1981, respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Ezra Grant to repair, for compensation, all leaks in the front and rear sections of the roof on Grant's home, which was located in Sebastian, Florida. (Testimony of Grant). When respondent and Grant entered into this verbal agreement, respondent gave Grant one of his calling cards. On the face of the calling card, in the lower right corner, was written "licensed and insured." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Testimony of Grant). At all time material hereto, respondent was not licensed to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Pursuant to the agreement, respondent performed roof repairs on Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent failed to obtain a permit to perform such roof repairs in violation of Section 105.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8a and b). On February 19, 1981, respondent submitted a bill in the amount of $800.00 to Grant for the roof repairs. The bill described the work performed and stated that the "work is guaranteed for 1 year." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Testimony of Grant). On February 20, 1981, Grant paid respondent, in full, for the described roof repairs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Approximately two weeks after respondent performed the roof repairs, the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home began to leak, again, in the area where it was repaired. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent returned to Grant's home, on two occasions1 after the discovery of continuing leakage in the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home. However, respondent did not perform roof repairs on either occasion. On the first occasion, he merely removed equipment which he had left at Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). After Grant complained to petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, respondent returned a second time. He inspected the rear portion of Grant's roof, removed two layers of slate from the roof, and tested it by pouring water over it. Although this test revealed that Grant's roof still leaked, Grant made no effort to repair the leakage. (Testimony of Grant). Arthur Mayer, then the Building Official for the City of Sebastian, observed respondent removing the slate from the roof. He instructed respondent that, upon finishing the work, he should go to the Sebastian City Hall and apply for a roofer's license and a permit for the roof repairs already performed on Grant's home. Respondent promised to comply. (Testimony of Mayer). But, despite his promise, he failed to apply for and obtain a license to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. He also failed to apply for and obtain a roof permit, and pay the proper late fees, as required by Section 107.2, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida, in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Testimony of Mayer; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 8a and c). Grant, eventually, had his roof repaired by another contractor at a cost of $150.00. (Testimony of Grant).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry E. Smith Route 1, Box 111B Fellsmere, Florida 32948 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 36170. On May 14, 1998, Phil and Kate Kribbs hired Al Pestana to replace a roof on their home, which was located at 7903 St. Andrews Road in Lake Worth. By July 20, 1998, Mr. Pestana completed the installation of a new shingle roof over the pre- existing shake roof, and, on the same date, the Palm Beach County Building Inspector inspected the work and issued a Certificate of Completion. A dispute later developed between the Kribbses and Mr. Pestana concerning the quality of the work that he had performed. The Kribbses hired a consultant, who opined that the work contained serious defects. The Kribbses, Mr. Pestana, and the Building Department engaged in periodic discussions over a relatively long period of time. On April 12, 2001, Mr. Pestana hired Respondent to examine the roof and issue a report. Respondent conducted a physical examination of the visible portions of the interior and exterior of the roof, accessing as much of the roof as he could from the attic and walking upon as much of the roof as he could. The parties addressed at length the issue of the structural integrity of the roof. However, for the purpose of determining whether Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of engineering, it is unnecessary to address the condition of the roof. Respondent's report, alone, constitutes misconduct in the practice of engineering. The report states that the roof would withstand winds of 70 miles per hour and a "major storm." As Respondent knew at the time, the applicable design wind speed is 100 miles per hour over a specified interval. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged, as he did in the report, that he mentioned 70 miles per hour because this is the maximum wind speed that shingles must withstand before detaching from the sheathing. However, the perils of detached shingles and a detached roof are entirely different in gravity. The issue of concern to the Building Department and the Kribbses was the peril of an inadequately attached roof detaching from the house during the design storm event--a far more dangerous contingency than detached shingles. Respondent's references to "major storm" and 70 miles per hour, in the absence of any mention of the design storm and whether the roof meets this more demanding standard, constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead the Kribbses and possibly the Building Department concerning the adequacy of the means by which Mr. Pestana had attached the roof to the Kribbs' house. This deliberate attempt to mislead constitutes misconduct in engineering.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand, an administrative fine of $1000, two years' probation, and costs. If the costs cannot be stipulated within a reasonable period of time, the Board may provide Respondent with a new point of entry for a hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings on costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry D. Goldman 2155 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit 21 Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Douglas Sunshine Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
