The Issue Whether Respondent’s use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners’ home, and, if so, the amount of damages to which Petitioners are entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Petitioners are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Petitioners have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. Respondent engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, Respondent utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent’s Blasting Activities The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Petitioners’ home. Each of the sections have been utilized as a discrete location where blasting activities occur in order for Respondent to obtain construction materials. Section 7 was in operation from the mid-1990s through the end of 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 7. Section 6 was in operation from 2000 through 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 6. Section 4/5 began blasting operations in the first quarter of 2015 and halted in the fourth quarter while excavation was done. Blasting in section 4/5 resumed in January 2016. To monitor the impact of its blasting activities, Respondent utilizes the firm GeoSonics, Inc. (“GeoSonics”). GeoSonics has performed vibration measurement, evaluation, and reporting to Respondent since 1986. Jeffrey A. Straw is a seismologist with 39 years of experience and is employed by GeoSonics. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw is responsible for monitoring the impacts of vibration from Respondent’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. GeoSonics placed seismographs to monitor the impact of Respondent’s blasting activities. Peak particle velocity (“PPV”) is the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground. The seismographs are used to determine if Respondent’s blasting activities are within the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. The seismographs must be located within one mile of each blast location to record the PPV resulting from the blasting activities. The seismographs are monitored and evaluated to ensure that their readings are accurate. The seismograph readings are evaluated by GeoSonics, which provides reports on the readings to Respondent and to the state fire marshall. Each seismograph undergoes testing to ensure that the instrument is working properly and providing effective and accurate readings. Every time a seismograph provides a reading concerning a blast, it sends a calibration pulse, which indicates whether the seismograph is working properly. Each seismograph instrument has an accompanying certification demonstrating that the instrument has successfully undergone testing and is working in accordance with the industry standards and specifications. There are six seismographs located within the vicinity of Petitioners’ home. The further the distance from the blasting location, the lower the blasting intensity. Each seismograph is located closer to the blasting location than Petitioners’ home. Thus, the PPV measured by the seismographs are greater than what the blasting intensity would be at Petitioners’ home. At no time have any of Respondent’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the 0.5 PPV limit. Petitioners Failed to Prove that Respondent’s Blasting Activities Caused Damages to Their Home In the instant case, Petitioners assert that Respondent’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Petitioners’ alleged damages center on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is clear that cracks exist in Petitioners’ home. However, the issue to be determined in this case is whether the cracks were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. They were not. In support of Petitioners’ position, Mrs. Alfaro presented at hearing a home inspection report. The inspection was conducted on April 18, 2016, and was not performed by a general contractor or structural engineer. Although the inspector identified various cracks based on his visual observations, the inspector specifically excluded any opinion regarding the cause of any need for repairs. Petitioners were specifically advised to obtain an opinion from a general contractor or structural engineer as to the cause of the damages. Mrs. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. Mrs. Alfaro’s testimony at hearing regarding the purported cause of the cracks is not credited and is unpersuasive. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Barbara Hagan. Ms. Hagan resides in Country Club, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is retired. She serves as the president of a civic association and secretary and treasurer of her homeowner’s association. She is not a general contractor, engineer, or seismologist. She has no experience in the use of explosives. She has never visited Petitioners’ home. At hearing, Ms. Hagan conceded that she has no opinion regarding the cause of any of the damages in Petitioners’ home. Mrs. Alfaro also presented the testimony of Paul Ingelmo. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Petitioners’ residence. Mr. Ingelmo did not review or analyze PPV data relevant to the blasts complained of by Petitioners. Mr. Ingelmo has no training or experience as to the appropriate threshold with respect to blasting activities and PPV. He is not familiar with how a wave behaves from a blast versus a seismic event. Mr. Ingelmo is not familiar with how PPV is measured or calculated. Importantly, Mr. Ingelmo could not give an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In fact, Mr. Ingelmo conceded that the damages could have been caused by any number of unspecified factors. Finally, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Ismailia Rashid. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Ms. Rashid visited Petitioners’ home, conducted a visual inspection, and observed cracks on the patio, interior floors, and driveway. Ms. Rashid is not familiar with PPV or ground vibration. She has never been in a home where she was present and there was blasting. Importantly, Ms. Rashid did not offer an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In sum, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that the damages to Petitioners’ home were not caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credits and finds persuasive the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses: Jeffrey A. Straw, David L. Teasdale, and Michael Schraeger. Mr. Straw visited Petitioners’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. At those visits, Mr. Straw accompanied Michael Schraeger, a licensed general contractor with Diversified Services, Inc. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Petitioners. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Petitioners’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.1/ Mr. Teasdale is a civil structural engineer with Haag Engineering and serves as vice president of engineering and principal field engineer. Mr. Teasdale’s specialty focuses on the extent of damage to structures due to ground vibrations, explosions, and earthquakes. He is a licensed engineer in the state of Florida and 34 other states and has been a licensed engineer since 1988. He is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. Mr. Teasdale was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at the Petitioners’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale testified that there are substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale explained that the fundamental difference between an earthquake and a quarry blasting is the amount of energy being released by the activity. Quarry blasting is a localized source event. An earthquake involves a fault line, which can extend for many miles and become mobilized. There is a direct correlation between the length of a fault line ripped versus the magnitude of an earthquake. Mr. Teasdale also explained that the measurement for quarry blasting, unlike the Richter Scale used for earthquakes, is a direct measurement; meaning that a PPV of 1.0 is twice the impact of a PPV of 0.5. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. Distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the upper-part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back-and-forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale explained that there was no damage to the foundation of Petitioners’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Petitioners’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Mr. Teasdale testified that at the level in which Respondent has blasted below 0.5 PPV, it is impossible for Respondent’s blasting to have caused damages to Petitioners’ home. Based on his review and analysis of Petitioners’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Petitioners’ home. Mr. Schraeger is a general contractor and building inspector. He is self-employed through his company Diversified Services, Inc., and serves as the owner/operator. Mr. Schraeger has approximately 30 years of experience in commercial and residential construction. He has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Petitioners’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in Petitioners’ home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Petitioners’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. There was no evidence of foundation damage.2/ Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Petitioners’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of Petitioners’ home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Petitioners. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. The crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Raylin Steel Erectors, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Respondent failed to obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is whether the penalty in the amount of $140,975.32, was properly assessed by Petitioner, Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. The Division maintains records of all Notices of Coverage for workers' compensation reported to it. Insurers are required by law to report all Florida workers' compensation policies to the Division. Respondent is a Georgia corporation located in Adel, Georgia. Respondent is in the business of erecting pre- engineered metal buildings not exceeding two stories in height. Respondent, at all times involved in this matter, was engaged as a subcontractor to various general contractors for construction work performed in the State of Florida. All of the work performed in Florida for purposes of these proceedings was actually performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Respondent testified that it did not use any of its own employees to perform work at any of the sites involved in these proceedings. Petitioner, based upon field interviews, determined that at least some of the employees working at Respondent's job site in Jacksonville, Florida, claimed to be employed by Respondent. Respondent had obtained workers' compensation coverage in Georgia which provided for out-of-state coverage for Florida under Section 3C of the policy, but no listed coverage for Florida under Section 3A. Four of the sub-subcontractors used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Celaya Steel Co., DC Construction, Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, and JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., had "other states coverage" in force, including Florida, in Section 3C (but not 3A) of their workers' compensation policies. Two companies used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Edward Leggett and Southern Steel Erectors, were not covered by the "other states coverage" provision of Georgia workers' compensation policies. On September 16, 2004, Edward Leggett, as a sub- subcontractor to Respondent, was engaged in the construction of a pre-engineered metal building located at 3615 Dupont Center, Jacksonville, Florida. The general contractor on this job was BEKKA Corporation. Allen DiMaria, Petitioner's investigator, observed the type of work being performed on the project, patch work on the roof. No steel erection, or any other type of work was observed being performed on this project. Respondent's workers' compensation code as its principal business is listed under sheet metal work, NCCI Code No. 5538. Petitioner admitted that this was the most appropriate code classification to describe Respondent's principal type of work. The type of pre-engineered metal buildings erected by Respondent's sub-subcontractors required various types of work. The first phase of the work is steel erection, also known as "red iron work." The next phase is erecting walls and performing various types of trim work involved with sheet metal. The third phase is roof work, and the final phase is trim work and any punch list work required to complete the project. Respondent's standard payment draw requests to its customer, the general contractor, follows a sequencing under which 25 percent is paid for steel erection, 50 percent for sheet metal work and trim out, and 25 percent for roofing. Respondent's sub-subcontractors are also paid in this same manner. Further, Respondent's sub-subcontractors, who all were out-of-state Georgia employers, generally provide per diem travel expenses to their employees and account for overhead and profit. On September 17, 2004, after conducting a CCAS database search which resulted in his finding no record of workers' compensation coverage for either Respondent or Edward Leggett, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. After the Stop Work Order was issued, Mr. DiMaria sent a request for business records to Respondent. Linda Rowan, Respondent's secretary/treasurer, responded that Respondent had no employees doing any work at any job sites in Florida, and that all work was being performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Mr. DiMaria then requested that Respondent send copies of any subcontracts, payment records, and insurance information regarding work performed in Florida by Respondent's subcontractors from 2002 to September 17, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. In response to this request, Ms. Rowan mailed copies of all subcontracts Respondent had with its sub- subcontractors, all payment records related to these contracts, and insurance certificates furnished by the sub-subcontractors. Because Respondent had no employees performing any of the work, it had no payroll records to send to Petitioner. Petitioner requested no business records from Respondent's sub-subcontractors to determine what actual payroll was performed on the jobs in question. Once the information was furnished to Petitioner, Respondent heard nothing further from Petitioner until the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued in the amount of $150,598.05. Petitioner, on the eve of hearing, further amended the penalty assessment to the amount of $140,975.32. In calculating the further Amended and Final Penalty Assessment, Petitioner asserted that it utilized the total payments made by Respondent to its sub-subcontractors in lieu of any payroll records, as the calculation of gross payroll. The actual amounts paid to DC Construction on the BEKKA Corporation job, performed from June 18, 2004 to August 19, 2004, and from July 29, 2004 to September 23, 2004, were overstated by $5,518.00. The amount of assumed payroll for the work performed by Southern Steel from April 12, 2002 to April 30, 2002, was understated by $800.00, based upon the actual payments received. These assumed payroll amounts were then multiplied by the NCCI classification code rates for steel erection for all work performed by Respondent's sub-subcontractors in Florida during 2002, 2003, and 2004. That figure was then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty assessment. Celaya Steel performed work in Florida between August 28, 2003, and September 30, 2003, for which it was paid $7,602.00, by Respondent. On a separate job, Celaya Steel was paid $7,000.00, for work performed between September 24, 2003, and September 30, 2003. These precise breakdowns by job performed by Celaya Steel are not included in the further Amended Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment, but were included in the original Penalty Assessment dated October 14, 2004. After deducting amounts paid for equipment rentals, the cost of work performed by Celaya Steel after October 1, 2003, is $13,528.00. Southern Steel Erectors performed work as a sub- subcontractor of Respondent from April 12, 2002, to April 30, 2002, for which it was paid $7,300.00. Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, performed work on May 14, 2004, with a gross payroll of $1,420.00. JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., performed work from October 30, 2003 to December 04, 2003, with a gross payroll of $5,873.00. Based upon insurance certificates received from its sub-subcontractors, Respondent believed that its sub- subcontractors' workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Petitioner calculated its original and final Amended Penalty Assessments using Florida premium rates and the class code for steel erection only. In the Final Penalty Assessment, the penalty was revised slightly due to equipment charges that were offset against the sub-subcontract amounts so that the assumed payroll was calculated based upon actual payments received by the sub-subcontractors, not the original subcontract amounts, except as to DC Construction where the subcontract amount, not the actual payments made to DC on the BEKKA Corporation job were used. Celaya Steel started this job, was later replaced by DC Construction, which was further replaced by Edward Leggett which finished the remaining roof-patching work on the project and was paid $4,000.00 for its work.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation issue a further and final Amended Penalty Assessment Order as follows: Edward Leggett. The gross payroll of $4,000.00 should be multiplied at the rate of 40 times the Roofwork NCCI approved manual rate of $46.17 per hundred, then times 1.5 for a revised final penalty of $2,770.20. DC Construction. The actual payments made to DC Construction were $43,321.58 which should be applied at the rate of 25 percent of the payment times the NCCI steel erection code 5059 rate, 50 percent of the payment times the sheet metal and trim NCCI code 5538 rate, and 25 percent of the payment times the roofing work NCCI code 5551 rate. This results in a revised penalty for the DC Construction work of $28,971.32. Celaya Steel Co. Only the amounts for work performed after October 1, 2003, $13,528.00 shall be applied for assessment purposes. Applying the appropriate codes as used for the DC Construction work (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $9,047.07. Southern Steel. No work was performed by Southern Steel Erectors after October 1, 2003. Accordingly, no penalty is to be assessed for any work performed by Southern Steel Erectors. Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction and Celaya Steel Co. (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing), yields a final revised penalty of $768.33. JCB Steel Erectors. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction, Celaya Steel Co., and Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $2,883.73. The total revised penalties and assessments (Items 1-6 above) are $44,440.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 19th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Allen P. Clark, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C050853 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Reliable Remodelers, a division of Action Bay Marine Company, Inc., and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On March 9, 1993, Joel Broder while representing himself to be vice president of Reliable Remodelers, executed a contract with Louise Rodney and Astrid Lamand wherein Reliable Remodelers agreed to perform certain roofing and carpet work at the residence of Yves and Louise Rodney at 35 N.W. 115 Street, Miami, Florida. The reason Astrid Lamand signed this contract was not established. The work to be done on the Rodney residence was in repair of damages caused by Hurricane Andrew. The costs of these repairs were to be paid by insurance proceeds. The price for this work to be performed by Reliable Remodelers, including materials, was $10,650.00. According to the terms of the contract, $200 was due as a down payment on or about March 9, 1993, and the remainder was due on completion of the work. Ms. Rodney gave Mr. Broder two checks as deposits toward the work to be done. The first was a check in the amount of $200.00 on March 9, 1993, the date the contract was signed. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney on March 9, 1993, to call him when her insurance settlement came in so he could come back for an additional check and thereafter begin work. On April 11, 1993, Ms. Rodney advised Mr. Broder by telephone that she had received her insurance settlement. On April 12, 1993, Ms. Rodney paid to Mr. Broder the second check, which was in the amount of $3,000.00. On April 13, 1993, Mr. Broder told the Rodneys that work would begin on the house in three days. Ms. Rodney made both of these checks payable to Joel Broder personally because Mr. Broder instructed her to do so. Mr. Broder assured her that it was acceptable to make these two deposit checks to him personally because of his position as a vice-president of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder indicated that the final check would be made payable to Reliable Remodelers. Reliable Remodelers never began work on the subject contract. No building permit was ever pulled for the project described in the subject contract. A local building department building permit would have been required for beginning work on the roofing portion of the project described in the subject contract. The Rodneys never received a refund of the $3,200.00 paid to Joel Broder. Louise Rodney was justified in believing Mr. Broder was an authorized representative of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder presented a business card and a contract with Reliable Remodelers' name and address and Respondent's general contractor's license number printed on the contract. Mr. Broder was employed by Reliable Remodelers and had the authority to negotiate contracts on its behalf with the public. Richard Levin, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers at the time of the Rodney contract, knew that Mr. Broder was representing Reliable Remodelers in a contract sales capacity at the time of the Rodney contract. Between April 13, 1993, and the end of June 1993 Louise Rodney and her husband, Yves Rodney, repeatedly called Mr. Broder at Reliable Remodelers, but were never able to get Mr. Broder or Reliable Remodelers to start work. When Mr. or Ms. Rodney called the number provided by Mr. Broder, he or she would sometimes get Mr. Broder, sometimes get an answering machine, and sometimes get a lady who answered the phone "Reliable Remodelers." Mr. Broder repeatedly made excuses to the Rodneys about why the job did not begin. Sometime around the end of June or early July, Ms. Rodney called Mr. Broder and demanded a return of her money. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney that he could not refund the money until the end of July because he never wrote checks until the middle of the month. Mr. Broder did promise to return the money to Louise Rodney by the end of July 1993. In July 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Metro Dade Building and Zoning Department against Reliable Remodelers and Joel Broder. On July 23, 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Joel Broder and Reliable Remodelers. In late August or early September 1993, Mr. Broder contacted Ms. Rodney by telephone about the refund. This telephone contact was after a representative from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation had contacted Mr. Broder about Ms. Rodney's complaint. In that telephone conversation Mr. Broder discussed the possibility of refunding to Ms. Rodney her deposit, but he insisted on keeping $200.00 of the $3,200.00. On or about September 10, 1993, the Respondent executed and sent Louise Rodney a letter on Reliable Remodelers letterhead. A copy of the letter was sent to the Department of Professional Regulation. This letter provided, in part, as follows: You have expressed a desire to be released from our contract dated March 9, 1993, for work in the amount of $10,650.00. We want to make it clear that we have been pro- hibited from fulfilling the terms of our contract by unreasonable and impractical demands by you, the Homeowners, as to how the work should proceed, i.e., demanding that roof tiles be loaded on the roof before it is hot mopped. 1/ Although your request at this time is not in accordance with the cancellation terms of our contract, we feel it would be in the best interest of all parties to grant your request. We do however, require written notification of your intent to cancel. Notarized signatures on this document will suffice. Upon receipt of this executed document we will initiate refund procedures. Your deposit of $3,200.00 will be returned to you within thirty (30) days. This allows us time to recoup binders issued for your job. Of course we have incurred some expenses in the set up for performing our contractual obligation. These, in excess of $400.00, we will overlook. Please endorse and have notarized the statement below and return this document to us promptly. The letter of September 10, 1993, contained a release clause that Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride were to sign and have notarized before any refund was to be forthcoming. Sometime just after September 13, 1994, in the evening, three men came to the Rodney home with a copy of the letter signed by the Respondent on September 10, 1993. One of these three men was Jules Lindsor, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Lindsor falsely identified himself to the Rodneys as being Gary S. Sachs. These three men were trying to procure the Rodneys' signature on a release from the subject contract. The Rodneys refused to sign the release because there was no refund present and because they wanted to consult a lawyer before signing. Sometime after September 13, 1993, the Rodneys executed a release and mailed it to Reliable Remodelers. At the time of entering the contract with Reliable Remodelers the Rodney home was leaking from damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. The leaks were finally repaired between April and June 1994 by persons other than Reliable Remodelers. Respondent and Reliable Remodelers ratified the contract that Mr. Broder executed on its behalf. There was no evidence that Respondent or Reliable Remodelers ever repudiated the contract as a Reliable Remodelers contract, that there was any effort to perform the contract, or that there was a tender of a refund of the $3,200.00 paid by Louise Rodney. There was no evidence that Reliable Remodelers had any justifiable excuse for its failure to perform any work pursuant to its contract with Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, pay restitution to Louise Rodney in the amount of $3,200, and pay costs incurred in the prosecution of this proceeding in the amount to be determined by the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1994. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November 1994.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Ernest Brown was licensed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board as a Masonry Flat Work Specialty Contractor and held License No. C-5015. On July 20, 1990, Respondent entered into a contract with Kali Gillespie (Exhibit 1) to build a two story garage addition to her home at 7901 Garden Drive North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The work was commenced in a timely manner and proceeded to completion until the stucco was applied which was supposed to match the color of Gillespie's house. As a Masonry Flat Work Specialty Contractor, Respondent is authorized only to contract for flat masonry construction such as driveways, slabs, etc. The work of pouring footings, laying blocks, framing and pouring lentils is work authorized to be performed by a Masonry Specialty Contractor. Respondent is not licensed as a general contractor who would be authorized to subcontract work for which the general contractor may not be qualified or licensed to perform. Other than the pouring of the slab for the garage floor and stuccoing the outside of the garage, all of the work for which Respondent contracted was beyond that authorized to be performed by a Masonry Flat Work Specialty Contractor. Only an occupational license is required to apply stucco. Respondent testified that he subcontracted with a licensed Masonry Specialty Contractor for the work that Respondent was not licensed to perform and that everything went well until the stucco was applied. Respondent further testified that he told Mrs. Gillespie that he would attempt to match the stucco with the color of her house, but could not guarantee a good match. In May or June 1990, Respondent contracted with James J. Da Silva to replace the driveway at Da Silva's residence. The work was completed in June 1990. Subsequent to the completion of the work, Da Silva was notified by the City of St. Petersburg Permitting Department that a permit was required for the driveway because part of this work was performed on the City's right of way. To obtain the after the fact permit, Da Silva was required to pay twice the normal fee of $130. Respondent gave no reason at hearing for his failure to obtain the permit. Both of these customers of Respondent suffered monetary damage due to Respondent's actions.
Recommendation It is Recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Ernest Brown guilty of the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint and issuing him a written reprimand and an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 17th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarah Richardson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 34616 Ernest Brown 4727 9th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33711
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state. Respondent, James B. Whittum, was licensed as a professional engineer by the Board under License No. PE 0027689, dated March 9, 1979. He is a consulting engineer dealing primarily in aluminum structures - mostly pool enclosures. Starting in 1990, Respondent did a number of designs, some thirty to fifty a year, for Paglino Aluminum, an aluminum contractor located in Tampa, which might also have had offices in Miami. The company is now out of business. Sometime in 1992 Respondent approved plans for Paglino for a residence for Mr. and Mrs. Marrero. These drawings were for an aluminum enclosure. He did not personally make the drawing which had been done by Mrs. Paglino. He did not know where the Marrero residence was but claims that at no time did he do or approve any drawings which he believed would be utilized for construction in Miami. In order to save clients money, Respondent had established a practice with Paglino and with a number of other clients by which he would train them in how to design and draw the pool cages. Respondent would provide the clients with a design booklet and instruction on how to use it. The client would bring drawings to the Respondent who would check them over to make sure that everything was done according to the design basis. A copy of the design guide was furnished to Paglino. Once Respondent received the drawings from the client, he would go through the whole design procedure himself to be sure that the drawings conformed to the code. In order to place his signature and seal on drawings, he had to have an identification of the site (either the name of the owner or the address of the site), the dimensions of the slab on which the structure is to be built, and the orientation of the structure with reference to the existing building to which it was to be attached. With regard to the specific plans in issue, Mr. Whittum did not know the structure was to be built in Dade County. The plans he saw bore the Marreros' name but not their address. He never spoke to the Marreros except for one call from Mrs. Marrerro, after the structure was built, complaining about it. Before signing the plans, Respondent checked in the Tampa phone book for listings for Marrero and found twenty-five or thirty listings for that name. He assumed the Marreros for which these plans were drafted were one of those families listed. It is not Respondent's practice to know the street address for every design he signs and seals. He inquired of several other engineers designing aluminum structures to see if they did the same as he proposed before signing and sealing these plans. He found that they have either the name of the owner or the street address, but not necessarily both. Included in those with whom Respondent spoke concerning this issue were engineers in Sarasota and Cape Coral. This testimony by Mr. Whittum as to the practice of other engineers is hearsay, however. Most counties in Florida, except Pinellas County, do not allow the use of standard plans as submittals for the purpose of permitting. However, an engineering firm has drawn a set of master drawings for the design of aluminum structures. These drawings were done for the Pinellas Chapter of the Aluminum Association of Florida, and each aluminum contractor in that county files them with the Pinellas Building Department. Thereafter, when plans are submitted, the Department official examines the plans with reference to the standard and decides whether or not to issue the permit. If the plans submitted by the contractor conform to the master design no engineer's signature or seal is required. This procedure has no bearing on any other county in Florida, however, and Respondent does not contend he believed at the time that the plans he signed would be used for construction in Pinellas County. It was not Respondent's practice to require a street address for the plans he signed and sealed for Paglino Aluminum. It was his understanding, however, that the instant structure was to be built in Hillsborough County because all the other jobs he had done for that company were, without exception, built in Hillsborough County. At no time did Paglino ever seek Respondent's permission to transfer these drawings to Dade County. By the same token, nobody asked him if the design he drew would be appropriate for Dade County. Had they done so, he would have told them the drawings were not suitable to meet the South Florida Building Code where the structural design standards are, in many ways, more stringent than in the Standard Building Code. As a result of this incident, Respondent has changed the procedure he follows. He now requires the drawings include a statement of who purchased the plans and who the proposed permitting authority is. This is not required by rule but is a precaution he takes. In his opinion, the drawings in issue were site specific. They showed the dimensions of the slab the structure was to be built on which determines the design for the size of the beams and their spacing. They also showed the orientation to the house where the structure would be connected. This was, he contends, all he needed to know to do the calculations for construction under the Standard Building Code. These calculations generally do not vary from county to county, with the exception of Dade and Broward County, where the South Florida Building Code is used. The plans Respondent signed and sealed did not indicate where the structure was to be built at the time he signed and sealed them. The plans called for a structure that could be put up anywhere in the state, except for Dade and Broward Counties. The fact remains, however, that at the time he signed and sealed these plans, Respondent did not know where the structure was to be built. His supposition that it would be built in Hillsborough County, while perhaps reasonable for a lay person, was not reasonable for a licensed professional engineer. According to James O. Power, a consulting structural engineer and expert in the practice of engineering, a structural engineer, in signing and sealing plans, accepts responsibility for the integrity of the design, certifies that the plans are good for their intended purpose, and asserts that the structure will be safe. A sealed plan may be necessary, depending on the building code and enforcement agency. The code leaves it up to the building official to require what he feels is necessary. Depending on the agency, permits may be issued on the basis of non-sealed plans. The seal carries with it the added imprimatur of the engineer's expertise. Properly sealed plans should: (1) identify the project; (2) identify the drafter; (3) identify the Code used; and (4) indicate limitations on responsibility the engineer has taken. Aluminum screen enclosures are generally similar and simple. Standard drawings can be developed for them. However, the standard plan, by itself, will not support a permit. To support the issuance of a permit, the plan must be site specific. This is a universal concept. For that purpose, additional drawings must be accomplished which consider and treat the specifics of that project. Frequently, plans are issued with a statement by the engineer limiting the degree of his or her responsibility, such as "only treating one issue" or "plans are standard and not site specific." No such limiting language was placed on the drawing in issue except, "This design is specific to this job. It is not valid if filed as a standard." In July, 1994, Mr. Power was contacted by the Department to evaluate the allegations against the Respondent in this case. In doing so, he reviewed the investigative report, portions of the transcript of the meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the drawings in issue, and affidavits by Respondent and by the Dade County building official, but did not speak with any of them. Respondent's plans in issue bear the notation that the design is "job specific" and not valid if filed as a standard. This means that the plan should identify the job for which the plans were drawn and bear details pertinent to it. Here, the Respondent's plans refer to the "Marrero" job, and who the contractor was. In Power's opinion, this is not complete and it is not enough for the engineer to say he had the specifics in his mind. The plans must be complete and stand by themselves. Mr. Power admits he has not designed any pool enclosures. He also did not inquire whether Respondent had an office in Dade County or what the permit requirements of counties in the state are. However, in his opinion, it is universal that standard plans do not support the issuance of a permit. Respondent's design includes connection details, slab details and wind load requirements. However, the name of the owner, alone, is not site specific information. While the exact street location is not required, an identification of the area in which the project is to be built, at the very least by county, is. Respondent's expert, Mr. Sterling, is less critical of Mr. Whittum's performance. In his opinion, it is not common within the profession for signed and sealed drawings to have an address or a name or contractor's name on them. Having reviewed Respondent's drawings, Mr. Sterling does not see anything else he would need to know to properly design the structure. He does not agree with Mr. Power with respect to having the address on each and every drawing. To him, what is important in looking at the drawing from a structural point of view are the design criteria that were applied to that particular structure. To his knowledge there is no professional requirement, statute or regulation that would oblige one to provide additional information. He admits, however, that there may be different practices or rules being applied in Dade and Broward Counties with respect to structure of this type. By Final Order dated April 3, 1992, the Board disciplined Respondent's license for negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing plans for an aluminum screened pool enclosure which the Hillsborough County Building Department found failed to meet acceptable engineering standards. The penalty imposed included an administrative fine of $500, a reprimand, and probation for one year under conditions designed to insure technical and professional enhancement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering; imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and revoking his license, but that so much of the penalty as provides for revocation be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted, but primarily a restatement of testimony. 17. - 22. Accepted, but these are primarily restatements of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 4. Not Findings of Fact but statements of procedure followed. Unknown. - 9. Not Findings of Fact but comments of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted. 14. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as surmise of witness, not knowledge. - 25. Accepted. - 28. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. & 31. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. - 37. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. & 40. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. - 44. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. More a comment by one witness on the testimony of another witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles S. Stephens, Esquire 1177 Park Avenue, Suite 5 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent violated various provisions of Section 24(2) Chapter 75- 489, Laws of Florida, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 20, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, James Rosati Jr., Respondent, was a certified residential building contractor and held license No. C-1135 from the PCCLB. He was the qualifying contractor for Pinnacle Home Improvements, Inc. Pinnacle Home Improvements, Inc. entered into a contract with Victoria Lawson to replace the aluminum roof on the back porch with a new roof, put an 8 foot divider wall in the back room, put soffit and facia around the overhang of the house, replace any bad wood found, replace a burglar bar with screen at front door, and replace a cracked beam and paint; all for a price of $4900. A building permit was obtained to install 150 linear feet of facia and soffit aluminum PLC coated on August 3, 1989 (Ex. 6) showing estimated cost of work of $1000. This permit did not cover replacing the roof or doing other roofing work for which Respondent was not licensed. When the work was completed Ms. Lawson paid the full contract price of $4900 to Pinnacle Builders. Shortly thereafter the roof began to leak and Lawson complained to Pinnacle who sent someone out to stop the leak by putting a coating of fiberglass over the plywood originally placed over the existing aluminum roof. When the roof continued to leak and satisfaction was not forthcoming from Pinnacle, Lawson requested a qualified roofer give her an estimate of the cost to replace the roof. Charles Dallier, a licensed roofer, inspected the roof and found that Pinnacle had nailed a sheet of painted plywood over the aluminum roof piercing the aluminum in the process. When Dallier returned a second time he found 90 pound roll roofing had been added to the roof. Dallier gave Lawson an estimated price of $850 to remove the aluminum roof and replace. The cost for a permit pulled for the work to be done is based upon the value of the work. Accordingly, the permit pulled that failed to include all of the work which Pinnacle had contracted to do cost Pinnacle considerably less than would have a permit showing the contract price of $4900. Respondent contends that he was always willing to replace the roof but the price quoted by Dallier was too high. Nevertheless, Pinnacle finally presented a check for $850 to do the roof properly but before the work started the check was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Pinnacle filed for bankruptcy.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent’s registered general and residential contractor’s licenses for violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(n) and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent, Edwin A. Henry, had been licensed by the Department as a registered general contractor and as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license nos. RG 0045112 and RR 0047927, respectively. Moreover, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Henry Company Homes, Inc. Henry Company Homes, Inc., is a production builder. A production builder builds homes from various standard or generic plans in the hopes of selling those homes at a later time. The homes are not customized in the sense that the plans for a home are drafted with specific home owners' input or for a specific home owner. The pace of production building is generally substantially faster and less expensive than custom home building. Economies in standard materials and use of labor are the reason for the lesser expense. To gain such economies, Henry Company Homes uses the critical path method of construction. The critical path method is a scheduling outline of the time and sequence of work to be done to build a house. The critical path method is an accepted and appropriate construction management technique and the Respondent’s critical path method and times are within the norms of construction techniques accepted in the industry. Respondent was the manager for Henry Company Homes. He did not personally build any of Henry Company’s houses and he did not personally build the houses at issue in this case. Moreover, Respondent was not on-site when these houses were built. Respondent’s role in the company was at least two levels removed from the actual on-site construction of any home. However, the Respondent’s organizational structure and span of management are within the norms accepted in the construction industry. On all homes built by Henry Company, the construction was supervised by a qualified construction supervisor. An assistant supervisor was available to a construction supervisor, should the assigned supervisor need help in overseeing the houses assigned to him. At least one supervisor, Charles Smith, who supervised the construction of the Hornsby house, voiced the standard complaint that he was being overloaded with houses located in different subdivisions and that it was difficult to maintain the production goals established by Henry Homes of completing a house in 10 to 12 weeks. Expert testimony indicated that such a goal was appropriate. Moreover, this complaint seems to be a standard complaint of construction supervisors everywhere and not particularly probative of any of the issues in this case relating to the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent’s supervisory responsibility for his on-site superintendents is within the norms accepted in the construction industry. The pace of construction of Henry Company Homes is the only fact submitted by the Department to demonstrate any knowledge or negligence on the part of the Respondent. No facts specific to the time period or pace of building of the houses involved in this complaint were submitted by the Department. Moreover, Mr. Smith also testified that the Hornsby home met the requirements of the Building Code and he was not aware of any defects in the home. Any other evidence on the issue of knowledge was unconvincing. Okaloosa County adopted the 1994 Southern Standard Building Code on November 15, 1994. Prior to that time the County, on September 21, 1993, had adopted by Ordinance the "current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code, including the appendix." In 1993, the current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code was the 1991 Standard Building Code. In all material respects, the provisions of each edition of the Standard Building Code relevant to this proceeding are the same. In essence, the Standard Building Code establishes minimum standards for the construction of residential homes. However, the Code provides for a high degree of flexibility in its interpretation and application by local building officials. One reason for the flexibility is that it is virtually impossible to construct a building which is totally compliant with the Building Code. Indeed there is a difference between non- compliance with the Building Code and a violation of the Building Code. Before a violation of the code occurs, notice of a deficiency and an opportunity to correct the deficiency must occur. Local building officials may adopt alternative methods of construction as long as those methods are not prohibited by the Building Code and meet the performance standards of the Building Code. No particular procedure is required for the determination of such alternate methods of construction and the building official is free to apply his expertise and knowledge of the local area to establish such alternate methods. The 1994 Standard Building Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: PREFACE. The purpose of the Standard Building Code is to serve as a comprehensive regulatory document to guide decisions aimed at protecting the public’s life, health and welfare in the built environment. This protection is provided through the adoption and enforcement, by state and local governments, of the performance-based provisions contained herein. The use of performance-based requirements encourages the use of innovative building designs, materials and construction systems while at the same time recognizing the merits of the more traditional materials and systems. This concept promotes maximum flexibility in building design and construction as well as assuring a high degree of life safety. The Standard Building Code incorporates by reference, nationally recognized consensus standards for use in judging the performance of materials and systems. This provides for equal treatment of both innovative and traditional materials and systems, provides for the efficient introduction of new materials into the construction process and assures a high level of consumer protection. * * * 101.3 Code Remedial General. This code is hereby declared to be remedial and shall be construed to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof, which are public safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, stability, . . . and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributable to the built environment . . . . Quality control of materials and workmanship is not within the purview of this code except as it relates to the purposes stated herein. * * * 101.4 Applicability 101.4.9 Referenced Standards. Standards referenced in the technical codes shall be considered an integral part of the codes . . . . Permissive and advisory provisions in a standard shall not be construed as mandatory. * * * POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL General. The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official is further authorized to render interpretations of this code, which are consistent with its spirit and purpose. (Emphasis supplied) * * * Requirements Not Covered By Code Any requirements necessary for the strength, stability . . . or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this or other technical codes, shall be determined by the building official. Alternate Materials and Methods The provisions of the technical codes are not intended to prevent the use of material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by them, provided any such alternate has been reviewed by the building official. . . . . Examinations of Documents Plan Review. The building Official shall examine or cause to be examined each application for permit and the accompanying documents, consisting of drawings, specifications, computations and additional data and shall ascertain . . . whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the technical codes . . . . Affidavits. The building official may accept sworn affidavits from a registered architect or engineer stating the plans submitted conform to the technical codes. . . . 105. INSPECTIONS * * * * * * 105.4 Inspections Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or Completion The Building official shall inspect . . . at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building . . . prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Completion. * * * 105.6 Required Inspections The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections . . . and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall notify the permit holder or his agent of any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes: Building Foundation Inspection: To be made after trenches are excavated and forms erected. Frame Inspection: To be made after the roof, all framing, fireblocking and bracing is in place . . . Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. * * * 202. DEFINITIONS GRADE-a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. . . . . * * * 1804. FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS 1804.1 General 1804.1.1 Foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill material. . . . * * * 1804.1.3 The bottom of foundations shall extend . . . no less than 12 inches (305 mm) below finish grade. (Emphasis supplied) * * * 1804.18 The area under footings, foundations, and concrete slabs on grade shall have all vegetation, stumps, roots, and foreign materials removed prior to their construction. . . . * * * 1804.4 Footing Design * * * 1804.4.2 Footings shall be proportioned to sustain the applied loads and induced reactions without exceeding the allowable stresses specified in this code. * * * 1906.4 Depositing 1906.4.5 After concreting has started, it shall be carried on as a continuous operation until placing a panel or section, . . . is completed except as permitted or prohibited by 1907.4. * * * 1907.4 Construction Joints * * * 1907.4.3 Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints. * * * 2111. MASONRY CONSTRUCTION * * * 2111.1.3 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in masonry veneer . . . at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1219 mm) on center by omitting mortar in the head joints. Weepholes shall be located in the first course above the foundation wall or slab . . . . 2111.1.4 Installation of Wall Ties. The ends of wall ties shall be embedded in mortar joints. Wall tie ends shall engage outer face shells of hollow units by at least 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). . . . * * * 203.1.2 The detailed structural requirements contained in this chapter are based on sound engineering principles. . . . * * * 2301.2 Design 2301.2.1 The quality and design of wood members and their fastenings used for load supporting purposes shall conform to good engineering practices. 2301.2.1 All members shall be framed, anchored, tied and braced so as to develop the strength and rigidity necessary for the purposes for which they are used. 2301.2.1 Preparation, fabrication and installation of wood members and the glues, connectors, and mechanical devices for the fastening thereof shall conform to good engineering practices. * * * 2306. FASTENINGS 2306.1 Nailing and Stapling Requirements. The number and size of nails or staples connecting wood members shall not be less than those specified in Table 2306.1. . . . 2306.2 Other Fastenings. Where framing anchors, clips, staples, glues or other methods of fastening are used, they shall be labeled, listed and installed in accordance with their listing. * * * 2308. VERTICAL FRAMING 2308.1 Exterior Wall Framing 2308.1.1. Studs in one and two story buildings shall not be less than 2x4 with the wide face perpendicular to wall. . . . * * * 2308.1.1 Heights listed in 2308.1.1 are distances between points of horizontal lateral support placed perpendicular to the plane of the wall. Heights may be increased where justified by analysis. * * * 2308.1.5 Studs shall be capped with double top plates installed to provide overlapping at corners and at intersections with bearing partitions. End joints in double top plates shall be offset at least 24 inches (610 mm). In lieu of double top plates, a continuous header may be used. . . . 2308.1.5 Studs shall have full bearing on a plate or sill of not less than 2 inch nominal thickness and having a width at least equal to the width of the studs. * * * 2308.5 Interior bearing Partitions 2308.5.1 The provisions of 2308.1.1, 2308.1.2, 2308.1.3 and 2308.1.4 shall apply to interior bearing partitions supporting more than a ceiling under an attic with no storage. * * * 2308.5 Interior Nonbearing Partitions 2308.5.1 Framing for nonbearing partitions shall be of adequate size and spacing to support the finish applied. . . . * * * 2309. ROOF AND CEILING FRAMING 2309.1 Ceiling Joists and Rafter Framing * * * 2309.1.3 Ceiling joists and rafters shall be nailed to each other where possible . . . . * * * 2309.1 Trussed Rafters * * * 2309.1.3 The bracing of metal plate connected wood trusses shall comply to their appropriate engineered design. In the absence of specific bracing requirements, trusses shall be braced in accordance with the Truss Plate Institute’s "Handling, Installing and Bracing Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses, HIB-91." * * * 2309.1 Roof Sheathing 2309.1 All rafters and roof joists shall be covered with one of the following Materials: * * * 4. Particleboard applied in accordance with the provisions of Table 2309.3B and nailed in accordance with Table 2306.1. * * * Table 2306.1 provides that roof sheathing of the type used in the houses involved in this case be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. The Administrative Complaint alleges the following Building Code violations as the sole basis for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent in relation to both the Hornsby and Anthony houses: Foundation does not extend at least 12 inches below finished grade; Foundation is deficient as to form; Stub trusses are not anchored to the interior weight bearing wall; Stub trusses are not adequately cross braced; Brick veneer is not adequately anchored to the interior sheathing or studs to safely resist wind loads; and As to the Hornsby house, the roof sheathing is not attached to resist wind load requirements in the code. The construction of the Hornsby residence was permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 2, 1994. At the time the Hornsby permit was issued, Okaloosa County was not reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code or inspecting properties for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The construction of the Anthony residence was duly permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 6, 1996. At the time the permit was issued, Okaloosa County was reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The plans for the Anthony residence passed that review by the Okaloosa County Building Department. The Hornsby and Anthony homes are wood-frame houses built on monolithic concrete slabs. They have a hip roof. The exterior walls are covered by brick veneer anchored with standard brick ties. Both houses have brick veneer which moves with the application of strong hand pressure to the top part of the veneer. The deflection on one wall of the Hornsby house is at least 1 inch. The deflection on the remainder of the Hornsby house and all of the Anthony house is slight and within general engineering perimeters. Both houses have been through at least two major hurricanes since they were built. Both hurricanes had winds in excess of any wind load requirements. Neither house sustained significant damage from either hurricane. There was no evidence submitted, through appropriate calculations, that the houses involved in this case did not meet the performance criteria of the Building Code. To the contrary, there is evidence that these houses do meet the performance requirements of the Building Code since they have survived at least two major hurricanes without sustaining the type damage these performance tests were designed to prevent. The Respondent requested and the Okaloosa County Building Department (Okaloosa County) conducted all required inspections of the Hornsby and Anthony residences. One deficiency, not at issue here, was noted by Okaloosa County during construction of the Hornsby house and was promptly repaired by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official. No deficiencies were noted by Okaloosa County during any of the inspections of the Anthony house. A Certificate of Occupancy (Certificate) was issued by Okaloosa County for the Hornsby house on March 14, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Hornsby residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Hayward Hornsby purchased the house within several weeks after the Certificate was issued and after one walk-through of the house. However, shortly after moving in, Mr. Hornsby noticed that large portions of the ceiling drywall were sagging or wavy. The view of the property corroborated the condition of portions of the Hornsby ceiling, but, the ceiling is not unsightly; the waviness in the Hornsby ceiling can be traced to an unlevel foundation. However, the waviness does not appear to be the result of any code violation on the Respondent’s part, but is one of workmanship. After seeing the wavy ceiling, Mr. Hornsby has never been happy with his house. A Certificate on the Anthony house was issued by Okaloosa County on December 9, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Anthony residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Mr. Anthony, to this day, is happy with his home and has never complained to the Department about his home. It was Mr. Hornsby who directed the Department to Mr. Anthony’s home. As indicated, the applicable Building Code requires that the foundation extend at least 12 inches below finished grade. Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. The foundation in the Hornsby and Anthony residences clearly met this Building Code requirement. Additionally, the view of each property demonstrated that the foundation met the Building Code requirement for depth. The Department’s expert testified that the correct measurement for determining the depth of the foundation below finished grade was from the bottom of the foundation to the bottom of the brick shelf. That is not the correct measurement for determining compliance with the Building Code. The correct measurement is from the bottom of the foundation to the top of the finished grade. The closest estimate of the original finished grade for both houses was the soil stain on the brick wall. Even after the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the depth of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the foundation be sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Section 1804.4.2, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts have testified that they had not performed any tests or calculations to determine whether the Hornsby or Anthony foundations are sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Importantly, nowhere in the Building Code is it required that walls be plumb or that foundations be level or shaped a certain way. One reason for this omission is that the materials and environmental conditions involved in construction are flexible and unpredictable, making mathematical and geometric precision impossible. Therefore, the soundness of a wall or a foundation under the Building Code is determined by using the various formulas for loads, wind, etc. Misshaped or unlevel foundations, or unplumb walls are not, by themselves, violations of the Building Code. Such construction is involved more in the quality of workmanship than in any code violations. The view of the Hornsby and Anthony residences conducted by the Administrative Law Judge failed to disclose any facts which support the allegation in the Administrative Complaint as to the form of the foundation. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Anthony had cracked bricks as the result of the insufficient foundation. No cracked bricks were observed during the view of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the form of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. On both the Hornsby and Anthony houses, the stub trusses were not anchored to the interior weight-bearing wall. Stub trusses are the blunt nosed trusses on a hip roof which intersect the main roof of a house and run under the main roof of a house forming a "T"-like structure. In this case, the blunt end of the stub trusses rested on an interior load-bearing wall. The other end of the stub trusses rested on an exterior load- bearing wall. The part of the trusses on the exterior load- bearing wall were properly anchored. When the Hornsby residence was permitted, Okaloosa County was not reviewing plans for compliance with the wind load requirements of the Building Code. Plans review did not begin in Okaloosa County until July 1, 1994. Such review did occur with the Anthony house. Indeed, at the time both houses were built, there was a great deal of confusion within the building community as well as Okaloosa County regarding how to comply with wind load requirements of the Building Code. When the Hornsby and Anthony houses were constructed, neither the builder nor Okaloosa County knew that the prescriptive method for wind load requirements (SSTD 10-93) required the stub trusses to be anchored to an interior weight-bearing wall because the intersecting main roof covers that part of the stub trusses. It was clear the end of the trusses resting on an exterior weight-bearing wall had to be anchored. The Respondent built both houses consistent with the interpretation and enforcement of the Building Code by the local building official and consistent with local building practices in the area. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence and confirmed that the stub trusses were not anchored properly as required by the wind load requirements of the local Building Code. In response to this finding (and consistent with established industry standards), the Respondent employed an engineer to design an appropriate anchoring mechanism for this condition. The engineer’s design was approved by Okaloosa County and properly installed by the Respondent as an alternate method of construction. Okaloosa County inspected the work and cleared the code deficiency. Based on the confusion by both contractors and local building officials regarding the wind load requirement of the Building Code at the time the Hornsby and Anthony residences were constructed, this technical Building Code deficiency was not a knowing violation by the Respondent. No evidence was presented by the Department that the Respondent had any personal knowledge of the existence of this condition prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the stub trusses be braced in accordance with the engineered truss drawings. At the time the Department made this allegation, its experts had not reviewed the engineered truss drawings. Based on observations at the viewing of the Hornsby residence, the bracing for the stub trusses in the Hornsby residence substantially met this Building Code requirement. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Official did not find any Building Code violations with respect to the cross-bracing of the trusses. He did note the bracing was light. Based on the view conducted by the Administrative Law Judge, the stub trusses did not have the required amount of bracing. The bracing which was in place was spaced too far apart by about 1 foot on the middle set of stub trusses. This spacing does not appear to be material and no calculations were completed to demonstrate that the bracing in place was inadequate or negligent construction. Moreover, no knowledge or negligence is attributable to the Respondent since he was unaware of the deficiency and the local building inspector passed the bracing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. When the brick veneer was removed on the end of the Hornsby residence, it was shown that all of the brick ties were installed into the interior sheathing or wall studs. Okaloosa County requires that the framers, not the brick masons, install the brick ties. The brick ties that were imbedded in the brick were properly installed, consistent with local construction practices in Okaloosa County. The failure of the brick masons to use the top row of brick ties is not a condition that the contractor knew about or reasonably could have known about, even with adequate supervision. The Hornsby and Anthony residences passed a brick tie inspection, the inspection which tells the contractor that the brick ties are properly installed and spaced. The failure to use the brick ties on the top row did not cause the excessive movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house. Due to the method of installation of Okaloosa County, it was impossible to use those ties on the soldier or top course of the brick wall. Indeed, the Department has failed to prove that the excess movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house even existed at the time the Certificate was issued on the Hornsby residence. The movement in the brick was caused by a break in the bond between the brick and the mortar in the tenth course from the top of the wall. It is impossible to know when or why that break occurred. However, Mr. Hornsby’s first report of brick movement to Okaloosa County was after the second hurricane hit Okaloosa County in 1995. The break in the bond could have been caused by the hurricanes or some other external force unrelated to the installation of the brick at the time the house was built. Although the Department’s expert testified that the brick veneer at the Anthony residence had the same movement as the brick in the Hornsby residence that conclusion had no factual foundation. The inspection by the Okaloosa County Building Inspector failed to disclose any excess movement in the brick veneer. A licensed engineer and contractor observed only the slightest movement in the veneer, all of which was within normal tolerances. Most importantly, no excess movement of the veneer was observed during the view. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires roof sheathing to be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. Table 1206.1, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts did not agree as to the number and severity of locations where nails in the roof sheathing missed the roof trusses. Based on the view of the Hornsby residence, there were some missed nails in the roof sheathing which allowed one section of sheathing to be lifted with hand pressure. The extent of the missed nails was very small compared to the number of nails contained in a roof on an average size house. All of the testimony supports the conclusion that the frequency and severity of this condition was not material. The number of "missed" nails was not a material deficiency and has not affected the performance or safety of the roof system. The deficiency is easily correctable. The concept that a few missed nails are a code violation that would support discipline of a contractor is not consistent with industry practice. Moreover, the record is void of any evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of this condition or that this condition was the product of a lack of supervision by the Respondent or even negligence attributable to the Respondent. To the contrary, the Hornsby residence passed a framing inspection, which included an inspection of the nailing in the roof sheathing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, after Mr. Hornsby complained about defects or problems in his home, he consistently denied access to the Respondent for the purpose of effecting repairs. In general Okaloosa County requires that a contractor be allowed an opportunity to fix a code deficiency before it considers a deficiency to be a violation of the Building Code. This interpretation of the Building Code by the agency responsible for its interpretation and enforcement is reasonable. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Hornsby residence, if any. Since the Respondent was not allowed such opportunity in relation to the Hornsby house, there is no code violation which the Respondent was aware of. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Anthony residence, if any, and was allowed to do so in at least one instance. Finally, on both the Anthony an Hornsby houses, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s supervisors were unqualified or failed to supervise the subcontractors underneath them or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge of a supervisor’s failure to supervise. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that the subcontractors were unqualified or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge that a subcontractor was unqualified or performed in a negligent manner. Without such specific and personal knowledge on the part of the Respondent, none of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint can be attributed to the Respondent. Therefore the Department has failed to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The construction of the residences at 102, 106, and 107 Louise Drive and 420 Jillian Drive were duly permitted by the City of Crestview, Florida. All of these houses were incomplete at the time of the inspection by the Department’s experts. The Department offered very little evidence in support of the allegations relating to these unfinished houses. On most of the houses the Respondent had not called for an inspection of the work the Department alleged was a violation. If the contractor has not called for an inspection of a particular phase of the work on unfinished houses, then the condition of that work by itself cannot support an alleged Building Code violation. In like regard, if the contractor calls for an inspection, and a deficiency is noted and the contractor corrects the deficiency to the satisfaction of the building official, then no code violation exists. All of the allegations regarding the incomplete houses fail for one of these two reasons. On all the unfinished houses the Department alleged that the foundation did not extend at least 12 inches below grade. Again proper measurement to determine the depth of a foundation is based on the finished grade. See Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. At the time each of these homes was inspected by the Department and its experts, finished grade had not been established. Therefore, there is no factual basis for this allegation in the Administrative Complaint and the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the brick ties were not properly spaced. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. Nor was there any evidence that the construction supervisor of the home had accepted the brick tie placement. Accordingly, the spacing of the brick ties could not be the basis of an alleged violation. Indeed, The Department’s expert agreed that this was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the drywall was improperly nailed. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the drywall was being installed. No observations were made after the drywall installation was completed to determine the final nailing pattern. The Department’s expert agreed that the condition he observed (which was the basis for the allegation in the Administrative Complaint) was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Also at 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the joint offset spacing in the top plate is less than 24 inches apart. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for the framing inspection on this house. The evidence further shows that the issue of the joint offset that was observed during the framing inspection, was noted by the building inspector as an exception, was corrected by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official and was passed by the local building official. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102, 106, and 107 Louise and 420 Jillian the Department alleged that the girder trusses were not anchored. The Department offered no evidence on this issue. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise the Department alleged that the exterior sheathing was not properly nailed. The Department offered no evidence regarding this condition at 102 Louise Drive. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts of 107 Louise Drive, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. The local building official conducted a framing inspection on both houses. Both houses passed the framing inspection. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, on all the unfinished houses, the Respondent requested and the City of Crestview conducted all required inspections of these houses. No deficiencies were noted by the City of Crestview Building Department during any of those inspections other than the joint offset at 106 Louise Drive. A Certificate was issued by the City of Crestview on each of these houses. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that these houses were constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. As with the Hornsby and Anthony house, even if code violations had been established, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Respondent knowingly committed any code violations with respect to the properties remaining in these two Administrative Complaints. Likewise, the evidence is insufficient to independently establish that the Respondent committed negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. The evidence did not show that the Respondent relied on unqualified supervisors or subcontractors or that he specifically and personally knew of such. The Respondent is entitled to rely on such qualified personnel. Without such evidence the misconduct charged in the Administrative Complaint cannot be attributed to the Respondent. Moreover, the evidence independently establishes that the Respondent had adequate systems and safeguards in place for supervision of his personnel, and adequately supervised the work on the job sites in question through such qualified construction supervisors. Finally, prior to the commencement of the formal hearing in this matter, the local competency boards for the appropriate jurisdictions disposed of those matters involving the following properties in favor of the Respondent: the Campbell residence, the McLean residence, all of the properties located on Dunbar Circle, the property located at 7222 Antoinette Circle, the Tiger Lake Townhome development, the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Preble, and the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Janecki. The undisputed evidence, in the form of an Affidavit from the Respondent, establishes that the residence allegedly located at 1894 Alfred Boulevard in Navarre, Florida, did not exist; this fact was unopposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of any of the counts in either of the Administrative Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David L. McGee, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Charles T. Wiggins, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler & Dudley 310 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory D. Smith, Esquire Gregory D. Smith, P.A. 201 South Baylen Street Suite A Pensacola, Florida 32501 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32311-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
