The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue Petitioner, the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, filed an administrative complaint dated May 20, 1986. Thereby, it has charged Respondent with violations of Sections 489.119, 489.129(1)(g), (j), and Florida Statutes, for which violations it seeks to impose, according to its post-hearing proposal, the requirement of $5600 restitution to Mr. Kenneth Jessell, a fine of $1500, and a one year suspension of Respondent's contractor's license. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE The parties' Joint Prehearing Statement was admitted as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Kenneth A. Jessell, Richard P. Scanlon, Gene O. Seymour, and Robert D. Hilson, and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Exhibit P-3 was marked for identification and proffered but not admitted. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Sheldon Israel and Respondent and had admitted Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, and 4. Exhibit R-3 was marked for identification and proffered but was not admitted. At the close of hearing, Respondent moved for dismissal for failure of Petitioner to establish a prima facie case. That motion was taken under advisement and is addressed in the following conclusions of law. Upon the filing of a copy thereof as a post-hearing exhibit, judicial notice was taken of Section 3401.1(a)(3) South Florida Building Code, without objection. Petitioner filed transcript herein, and the parties' timely filed their respective post-hearing proposals within the time extensions agreed-upon and granted. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC02955I, whose address of record is 2311 N. E. 35th Street, Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064. On or about June 6, 1985, Respondent, doing business as Great Southern Industries, contracted with Mr. Kenneth Jessell to install a roof on Jessell's house at Lighthouse Point, Florida. The contract price was $5,600. At no time relevant to the charges herein did Respondent or anyone else qualify Great Southern Industries nor did that name appear on Respondent's license. At hearing, Respondent admitted a violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than that appearing on his state certificate, and further admitted violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, by failing to qualify a legal entity through which he was contracting. The parties stipulated those allegations of the complaint were to be considered proven. In mitigation, Respondent established that no fraud or deceit concerning who was actually performing the roofing work was perpetrated against Mr. Jessell, that Respondent's omissions were due to his misunderstanding of the legal requirements involved, and that at all times since its incorporation, August 31, 1984, Respondent has been sole shareholder, officer, and director of Great Southern Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation. Upon being made aware of his violations, he has ceased to do business as Great Southern Industries. There is no evidence of prior misconduct. Respondent, as Great Southern Industries, partially completed work on Jessell's house and Jessell partially paid for said work when a dispute arose between Respondent and Jessell relative to the work. Respondent began work on Jessell's roof on June 17, 1985. On June 18, 1985, a pitch fire broke out. The pitch fire resulted from a tar kettle which had not been appropriately handled by an employee of Respondent who had been assigned to tend it. Such fires are not uncommon in the industry. After the fire was put out, work ceased for the day, but Respondent appeared the very next day and continued with the roofing project. There is expert testimony that leaving such a pitch or tar fire unattended was negligent and that if the overly hot pitch or tar had then cooled overnight, been reheated, and used on Jessell's roof it would have been inadequate for the job. However, there is no direct credible testimony or documentary evidence that this is what actually occurred. Mr. Jessell was not present on the site the next day and approximately 60-70 percent of the base layer of the roof had been tarred over before this event occurred. Mr. Jessell is a college professor in finance and real estate. He has no expertise in contracting, roofing, or inspection of such jobs or the material used therein, but upon observation from the ground, without going onto the roof, Jessell decided the roof was not being properly constructed. On June 25, 1987, at Mr. Jessell's insistence, Gene O. Seymour, the Chief Building Inspector of the Broward County Building Department inspected the job, which he did not approve at that time. Respondent came back to conform the job to the inspector's concerns. Seymour did not approve the job at reinspection on July 1, so Jessell withheld payment. Respondent again returned and did some additional work. On July 9, the job again did not pass inspection. Respondent did further repairs on July 29. There were numerous other inspections but the job did not pass for one reason or another. On each occasion, Respondent came back to address the inspector's concerns. Seymour's testimony can be synopsized that he made an extraordinary number of inspections (at least 20) at Mr. Jessell's urging, and that the roof often failed to pass, mostly because the work was not yet fully completed. Inspector Seymour noted that sometimes the job would pass one inspection only to have Jessell call him back and show him new problems which had appeared in the interim. Seymour could not explain how this could be. He termed the job "jinxed." Respondent maintains, and Jessell denies, that Jessell frequently would go up on the roof and make suggestions to Respondent and his employees on how the roofing should be done, that Jessell pulled up on the felts, and that Jessell otherwise damaged the work done by Respondent and his crew. Having observed the respective candor and demeanor of Jessell and Respondent, and after considering and weighing the foregoing comments of Inspector Seymour and of all the witnesses' peripheral testimony on how rapid deterioration and excessive patching occurred, I find Respondent's explanation of the problems up to this point to be the more credible explanation, if a somewhat exaggerated one. Up until August 22, 1985, Respondent came and fixed anything Jessell complained of or that had been noted by an inspector. Finally, on August 22, Inspector Seymour approved the job as ready for the addition of tiles. Jessell was still dissatisfied with the roof.. By this time, he had been up on it several times with and without Seymour. Jessell took photographs and sought out Seymour in his office. Seymour rescinded his approval due to the appearance of new water blisters. Both Jessell and Seymour concur that at this point there were no leaks. On August 30, Seymour inspected again. He cut deeply into the roofing material in three places; in each place, he cut down to the base plywood sheeting and found no evidence of any water. This type of testing is considered "destructive testing." He also observed gouges, slashes, and nails working out. He proposed that Jessell get an independent consultant to resolve the problems between them. Respondent obtained a visual inspection by Sheldon Israel who wrote a letter which was signed off on by a certified architect and which confirmed that the roof as completed by Respondent thus far complied with the intent of the South Florida Building Code, which Code has been adopted in Broward County. On September 20, Seymour gave final approval for the stage the job had reached based on the letter from Israel and the fact that the waterproof membrane which Respondent had installed was intact at that time. Thereafter, Jessell hired Richard Paul Scanlon, a licensed and certified roofer, who eventually tore off what had been done by Respondent and did a complete "reroof" at a cost to Mr. Jessell of $6500. Scanlon, qualified at hearing to give expert evidence in roofing contracting, saw the roof in January 1986, approximately six months after Respondent had left the job. During those six months, the unfinished roof had been sitting exposed to the elements, without tiles, and with numerous patches, gouges, and cuts in it. He opined that Respondent's work constituted poor work and gross negligence. His opinion is based on his visual inspection without any tests whatsoever. Errors in Respondent's work which he noted included mopping the tar the wrong way, improper water lapping, and use of some rag felts and some fiberglass felts as opposed to the use of fiberglass as required by the Jessells' contract with Respondent. (However, rag felts and fiberglass felts both meet Code requirements.) Scanlon felt there was a possibility the roof would slide if tiles were added atop Respondent's work but declined to say this was a probability. In order to give a roof warranty, Scanlon felt he had to tear off Respondent's work and "reroof." Whatever he may have found when he tore the roof off later was not explored. Robert D. Hilson, a licensed and certified roofing contractor was also qualified as an expert witness. He also did not inspect the Jessell work until January 1986. He stated the number of patches over the base layer was excessive and unusual and the consistency of the tar was far too "runny," thin, and "gooey." As opposed to this thin consistency being clearly connected to the kettle fire and base coat mopping, Hilson indicated the consistency of tar he was objecting to was a last attempt at overpatching the base layer. He also testified that the roof patches had been lapped the wrong way and occasionally had been mopped inadequately or the wrong way, and he assumed the base layer was also lapped the wrong way, but he never "eyeballed" the base layer to verify this. He found water present at that time. He indicated 6 months exposure would have caused insignificant deterioration. Contrariwise, Sheldon Israel, also accepted as an expert, opined that possibly 6 months could have caused the deterioration Scanlon, Hilson and Jessell all described as existing in January 1986. The contract between the Jessells and Respondent is ambiguous. One portion provides: "5. Install Spanish Style, cement tile roof over 90 lb. roof surface." Another paragraph provides: "8. Owners to select specific colors of Gory Spanish S by 6/12/87 at 12:00 p.m." Printed instructions (specifications) for installation of Gory roofing tile require water laps on 90 pound felt. The Southern Building Code requires prepared roof coverings to be applied in accordance with manufacturers' printed instructions for the products used. Respondent used 90 lbs. rag felts and some fiberglass felts. Both meet Code. Respondent admits he also installed a waterproof membrane or tile underlayerment that was manufactured especially to go underneath Genstar cement tile. This waterproof membrane can only be exposed to the elements without covering for 6-8 months before it is too damaged for use. Respondent planned to install Gory tile on top of the membrane but according to the best expert testimony Gory tile cannot competently be installed over such a waterproof membrane and its ability to be installed over fiberglass felts is questionable. The dispute between Jessell and the Respondent was resolved and Mr. and Mrs. Jessell executed and tendered a full release dated March 20, 1986, for all work performed on their house by Respondent and Great Southern Industries, Inc.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, assessing a penalty of $1000 administrative fine therefor, and dismissing the charge of fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct brought under Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-2552 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF. 1-2. Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Sheldon Israel was accepted as an expert witness upon other qualifications of record. Accepted but alone is not dispositive of any issue at bar. Rejected as out of context and as not constituting an ultimate material fact. The topic as a whole is covered in FOF 9-11 and the conclusions of law so as to conform to the credible record as a whole. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Topic covered in FOF 5 and 10. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Contrary to the parties' belief, lack of supervision was not alleged with specificity in the administrative complaint. I accept Respondent's testimony that the employee assigned to the kettle, improperly oxygenated its contents but had not abandoned it. See FOF 5 and 10. Rejected as covered in FOF 11 which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as covered in FOF 9 which conforms to the evidence of record. Respondents Proposed FOF. Covered in "Issues." Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 3. Rejected as covered in FOF 11, which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted as modified in FOF 6-7 to conform to the evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Gary I. Blake, Esquire 3111 University Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license number is CC C020246. Respondent is vice president of Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (The Dean Company), Post Office Box 2077, Clearwater, Florida. By proposal submitted March 31, 1983, and accepted by Marshall Kent on April 1, 1983, the Dean Company contracted to remove the existing roof on Kent's residence and replace same at a price of $8,600 (Exhibit 1). The work was supposed to start April 11, 1983 and be completed on April 15, 1983. This contract was signed on behalf of Dean Company by Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, as vice president of Dean Company and by Marshall Kent. Kent is an experienced residential contractor who acknowledged having built approximately 2,000 homes. While removing the existing roof, Dean Company workers found the 30-year old house had three plys of roofing applied since the house was constructed and to remove this thick roof heavier equipment that normal was required. Kent's residence had a tectum roof decking which consists of a metallic-fiber substance which has a long life and serves as inside ceiling and outside roof decking over which built up roofing is applied. While removing the existing roof the tectum deck was fractured and Kent ordered Dean Company workers off the Job. By letter dated April 18, 1983 (Exhibit 6) Respondent advised Kent that the cost of replacing the damaged tectum would be borne by the Dean Company and it was necessary to get on with the project before additional damage was done through the areas of roof exposed by removal of the original roof. Upon seeing Exhibit 6, K. A. Williams, president of Dean Company and father of the Respondent, concluded that the problems may have been exacerbated by a personality conflict between Respondent and Kent, and turned the job over to R. L. MacMurry, another vice president at Dean Company, who had considerable experience in the roofing business. By letter dated Apri1 19, 1983 (Exhibit 7) MacMurry, on behalf of Dean Company, advised Kent that since he questioned their ability to properly install the new decking to replace the damaged decking they would employ the services of a general contractor to replace the damaged tectum, and if the replaced tectum did not match the original tectum they would have the entire ceiling painted. Kent denies receiving this letter. Kent refused these offers and by letter dated April 21, 1983 "Exhibit 8) R. A. Williams pointed out that Kent's refusal to allow Dean Company to immediately complete the roofing work in progress could lead to serious damage from water intrusion and that such damage would be Kent's responsibility. On Friday, April 29, 1983 a meeting was held between the Kents, Williams and MacMurry at which Dean Company -agreed to immediately recommence roof work, bring in a general contractor to replace the damaged decking and complete the contract. Kent demurred until the agreement was reduced to writing, preferably by an attorney. Kent prepared an endorsement on Exhibit 9 in which responsibility for the repairs was, in Kent's opinion, shifted to the general contractor. This endorsement was accepted by the parties on May 3, 1983. The residence was reroofed in accordance with the latter agreement and Kent never advised Dean Company that all work was not satisfactorily completed. Dean Company provided Kent with a five (5) year Roofing Guarantee (Exhibit 11) dated May 10, 1983, which was forwarded to Kent by letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exhibit 10) with an invoice for the total owed on the job (Exhibit 14). Kent responded with letter dated May 17, 1983 (Exhibit 23) contending he was not whole, the job was not. complete and the guarantee was a joke. Kent considered the Roofing Guarantee suspect because it was a form used by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association. Shortly after this time Kent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and upon his release from the hospital in August 1983 he found that a mechanic's lien had been placed on his property by Dean Company. He also found what he believed to be leaks into the ceiling of a bedroom but made no complaint to Dean Company. Kent then hired a roofer, Chuck Goldsmith, to inspect the work done on his roof. When Goldsmith tried to negotiate the dispute between Kent and Dean Company, Kent fired him. Kent then hired William A. Cox, an architect and roofing consultant, to inspect the roof and advise what needed to be done. Cox inspected the roof in late October 1983 and submitted a list of discrepancies he recommended for correction. In one place he was able to insert a knife blade between the Fla. roof and the vertical wall against which the roof abuts which indicated no sheathing had been installed. Expert witnesses opined that without metal sheathing the roof would have leaked within six to eighteen months and the roof could never have been intact for the 30 years the house had been built without sheathing at such a joint. The vertical side of the original flashing would have been under the stucco at this point and there was no evidence that the stucco was disturbed when the new roof was first installed by Dean Company. New flashing was subsequently installed by Dean Company at this juncture but no one testified respecting the flashing observed or not present when this new roof was removed to insert the new flashing. Failure to insert flashing at such a juncture of horizontal roof and vertical wall would constitute a violation of the Standard Building Code. The report Cox gave to Kent was not made known to Dean until January 1984. By letter dated August 21, 1984 (Exhibit 13) Clark and Logan advised K. A. Williams that they would do all of the work listed in the Cox report on the Kent residence. This work was done in August 1984. Kent contends the leak continued in his bedroom after the work was completed but he never relayed this information to either Clark and Logan or to Dean Company. He has yet to pay one penny for the work done on his roof. Kent considered Clark and Logan to be the prime contractor on the job at the time the August 1984 work was done. Kent further testified that following that work Clark and Logan abandoned the job and he also filed a complaint against that general contractor. Since April 1983 following the damage to the tectum decking, Respondent, Bruce Williams, has had no responsibility for, and did no supervision of, the reroofing of Kent's residence. When the roof was inspected by the Pinellas County Building Inspector he found the workmanship done on this job only slightly below standard. At one place-on the roof Cox found the lower section of flashing overlapped the upper section of flashing which would have permitted water to enter under the flashing. This was a mistake but not an uncommon one for roofers to make. When pointed out to Dean Company the situation was promptly corrected.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 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 committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent conducted business through an entity known as C. J. Home Improvement Corporation, which was also not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. In 1995, Joseph Pallant was one of the owners and the manager of a commercial building located at 3700 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In January 1995, Mr. Pallant entered into an agreement to lease the building for a term of ten years to a non-profit organization named PWAC, an acronym for People With Aids Coalition. PWAC had an office in the adjacent block and wanted to operate a thrift shop at the subject premises. The roof on the subject building leaked. The parties agreed that Mr. Pallant would pay to replace the roof and that PWAC would thereafter be responsible for maintenance. The officers of PWAC informed Mr. Pallant that they wanted Respondent to do the roofing work. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was unlicensed. It is clear that Mr. Pallant and Respondent knew one another prior to January 1995. Based on Mr. Pallant's testimony, which the undersigned finds credible, it is found that Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was in the building repair business, but that he did not know Respondent was unlicensed. Respondent's assumption that Mr. Pallant knew he was unlicensed is not as credible as Mr. Pallant's direct, unequivocal testimony that he had no such knowledge. After having several conversations with Mr. Pallant by telephone and at the building, Respondent prepared a written proposal on his business form to do the work necessary to replace the roof. The proposal was submitted to PWAC. The proposal described in detail the work that would be done and the materials that would be furnished, the time frame for the work, and the price. The price was set at $6,183.00 plus $400.00 if certain additional work would have to be done on certain drains. PWAC was provided a copy of the proposal that was dated February 25, 1995. Respondent signed this proposal and affixed the corporate seal of his business entity. Under Respondent's signature was the phrase "personally individually guaranteed." At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Pallant was one of the owners of the building and that he would be paying for the roofing work. On February 27, 1995, Respondent and Mr. Pallant met. Respondent gave Mr. Pallant an unsigned copy of the written proposal (dated February 27, 1995, but otherwise identical to the form given PWAC, but dated February 25, 1995). After they discussed the work, Mr. Pallant accepted the proposal and gave Respondent a check made payable to C. J. Home Improvement in the amount of $3,100.00. Respondent accepted this check and deposited the proceeds of the check in his company's bank account. Without the prior knowledge or consent of Mr. Pallant, Respondent attempted to subcontract the roofing job to a licensed roofer named Don Palmier.1 No work was started on the job. In March 1995, Mr. Pallant met with representatives of PWAC and Respondent to discuss the lack of progress. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Palmier refused to proceed with the roofing job2 and Mr. Pallant learned that Respondent was unlicensed and could not do the work. During the course of the meeting PWAC cancelled its lease. Mr. Pallant subsequently filed suit against C. J. Home Improvement for the return of the $3,100.00. Despite obtaining a final judgment for that sum plus costs and fees, the Respondent has not satisfied any portion of the judgment. As of April 23, 1998, the Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $269.62.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein; finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; dismisses Count II of the Administrative Complaint; imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00; and assesses costs against Respondent in the amount of $269.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998
Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard McDougal, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0050466. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for D & R Roofing Co., at all times pertinent to these proceedings. On July 31, 1989, Arla Jackson signed and accepted Respondent's written proposal to re-roof a house belonging to Jackson, located in Washington County, Florida. Prior to engaging Respondent to re-roof the house, Jackson had only a minimal amount of leakage in a couple of corners inside the house. Under the terms of the written proposal provided by Respondent to Jackson, Respondent agreed to remove the old roof covering from the structure; install a new three ply fiberglass felt covering; install new eave metal around the roof perimeter; extend the roof a short distance at one end; and top coat a utility building on the premises. Further, Respondent agreed to haul away debris resulting from the job. Completion of the roofing project by Respondent and receipt of payment from Jackson in the amount of $3,000 occurred on August 9, 1989. $2,900 of this amount was payment to Respondent for replacing the old roof while the remainder satisfied charges by Respondent for additional work required to extend the roof. Shortly after Respondent's completion of the roof replacement, Jackson began to telephone Respondent, requesting that he come and repair holes in the roof that were leaking water as the result of rain. Respondent came to Jackson's house on at least three occasions to attempt to stop leaks in the roof. He eventually determined that he had stopped the leaks and told Jackson that, as far as he was concerned, there was no roof leakage problem. Jackson's flat roof continued to leak. Eventually, Gus Lee, an unlicensed roofing assistant to H.M. Strickland, a local licensed contractor, agreed to repair her roof and eliminate the leakage problem. Strickland's signature appears with Lee's on written documentation bearing the date of October 1, 1989, and promising a "fine roof with no leaks; and I will stand behind it." Jackson accepted the Strickland offer. Jackson paid approximately $1,925.00 to Lee for work in connection with replacing the roof and painting the interior ceiling of the house. She paid an additional $653.79 for building supplies in connection with the project. Overall, Jackson paid approximately $2,578.79 for labor and materials to re-roof her house and repair the interior ceiling damage resulting from the leakage. This amount was in addition to the amount previously paid to Respondent. On October 20, 1989, Lee, the unlicensed assistant to Strickland and the person who actually undertook the task of re-roofing Jackson's house, removed the previous roofing material placed on Jackson's house by Respondent. Lee observed no fiber glass felt covering material on Jackson's roof at the time he re-roofed the house. Lee's testimony at hearing was credible, candid and direct. Although unlicensed as a contractor, Lee's attested experience supports his testimony regarding what he observed and establishes that Respondent failed to comply with his agreement to Jackson to provide fiber glass felt during the initial roofing of the house and instead used a less expensive material. Lee's testimony, coupled with that of Jackson and Lee's son, also establishs that significant damage had occurred to the interior ceiling of Jackson's house as the result of leakage after completion of work by Respondent. After Lee completed the re-roofing of Jackson's home, inclusive of use of a six ply felt covering on the roof accompanied by pea gravel and sealant, the roof's leakage stopped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $1500 upon Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-4. Adopted, though not verbatim. 5.-8. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's Conclusions. 9.-11. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard McDougal Box 10277 Panama City, FL 32404 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
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.
