Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the positions of the parties, I hereby make the following: Thomas G. Walker (herein sometimes called "Licensee" or "Respondent") is a registered residential contractor and is issued license number RR 0009839. Thomas G. Walker was initially licensed by the Board in July of 1969 as an individual and during January, 1975, he changed his registration status as an individual to qualify Insulshield Roofing as the business entity through which he would conduct his business (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). An examination of the official records pertaining to the Licensee reveals that he does not now nor has he ever held a roofing license in the State of Florida. On February 16, 1979, the Licensee was apprehended contracting roofing without a State roofing contractor's license by the Board's representative and was issued a Notice of Violation (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). On July 26, 1977, the Licensee entered into an agreement with Jan Soderstrom, 501 Orlando Avenue, Indialantic, Florida, to remove the tile from the Florida Room of her residence and hot mop the herein-described roofing area, to replace tile as needed, to clean and coat the entire roof, and to install a cap over Ms. Soderstrom's chimney. He guaranteed the work for a period of five (5) years and charged a contracted price of $800.00. The Licensee was paid the contracted price of $800.00 by check dated August 4, 1977 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). During early February, 1978, Ms. Soderstrom detected a leak in her roof and summoned the Licensee back to her residence to repair same. During February, 1978, Respondent returned to Ms. Soderstrom's residence to repair the leak in her roof. Upon his return, he removed several roof tiles and since February, 1978, to the present, he has not returned to this project. Clyde Pirtle, a field investigator for the Board, investigated the Licensee based on complaints that he received from Ms. Soderstrom and from a Mr. Capitz. On or about February 16, 1977, Mr. Pirtle discussed a Notice of Violation with the Licensee and explained to him the necessity to register as a Roofing Contractor, if he was in the business of acting as a Roofing Contractor. Mr. Charles D. Franklin, a building official of Indian Harbor Beach, Florida, is the custodian of the records in Indian Harbor, Florida. Based on an examination of the records by Mr. Franklin, the Respondent/Licensee is not registered as a Roofing Contractor locally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the registered residential contractor's license, number 0009839, of the Licensee, Thomas G. Walker, d/b/a Insulshield Roofing, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Thomas G. Walker d/b/a Insulshield Roofing 170 5th Street South Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Petitioner was unlawfully terminated from his employment with Respondent based upon his age and in retaliation for protected activity; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact In June 2016, Petitioner, a 58-year-old man, responded to an advertisement for laborers posted by Aerotek, an employee leasing company. Petitioner was hired and told he would be placed as a general laborer with Advanced Roofing for a solar panel installation job at the Lake Worth landfill. Petitioner attended a safety orientation presented by Advanced Roofing in June but was not actually placed at the job site until August 1, 2016. Advanced Roofing is a roofing company that employs approximately 380 workers for commercial roofing jobs, HVAC, and solar panel installation throughout Florida. It also contracts with Aerotek and CLP, employee leasing companies, to supply laborers to specific job sites on an as needed basis. Advanced Roofing has an agreement with Aerotek to pay designated hourly wage rates to Aerotek based upon job classification. It is up to the discretion of Aerotek to determine what wages are paid to individual laborers. Petitioner's Employment at Advanced Roofing's Job Site Based upon Petitioner's prior experience, he was classified by Aerotek as a general laborer and assigned by Advanced Roofing to supervise a crew for the pouring of concrete pillars. He reported to, and received direction from, Advanced Roofing's site supervisor, Paul Burns. Petitioner received an hourly wage from Aerotek in the amount of $13.00 per hour. Shortly after beginning work with Advanced Roofing, Petitioner complained repeatedly to Mr. Burns that he should be paid more based upon his experience and the fact that he was asked to supervise others. Mr. Burns explained that Advanced Roofing does not control what Aerotek pays its workers but that he would speak to Aerotek about a possible raise. Petitioner discussed his pay concerns with co-worker Allen Andrews, who was approximately 30 years old. Mr. Andrews told Petitioner he thought he (Mr. Andrews) too should be paid more based upon his skill set. In fact, Mr. Andrews apparently addressed this issue with Aerotek and received a pay raise from Aerotek to $15.00 per hour. After Mr. Andrews showed Petitioner his pay stub, Petitioner asked Mr. Burns whether Mr. Andrews was being paid more because he was younger. Petitioner believes Mr. Andrews received the requested raise despite being less qualified than Petitioner and holding no license or certification. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows that Mr. Andrews was classified as an "electrical helper" by Aerotek and had prior electrical conduit experience that Petitioner did not have. On October 3, 2016, Petitioner sent a text message to his immediate supervisor, Ray Mason, at 4:13 a.m., advising he was coming back to town from Orlando and would be arriving late for work that day. Petitioner explained that the laborers were instructed to call in as soon as they knew they would be late or absent. At 5:50 a.m., Mr. Mason replied, "Do you see what time it is man? You just cut my sleep. Don't come back." Over the course of Petitioner's assignment to Advanced Roofing from Aerotek, Petitioner, by his own admission, missed at least three days of work. According to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner missed five days of work during that time and was repeatedly late. Although Petitioner testified that other younger workers routinely missed work or came in late without calling in and without consequence, he offered no corroborating evidence. Prior to his termination, Petitioner received no counseling or written discipline regarding performance or attendance. On September 28, 2016, Advanced Roofing contacted Aerotek to supply four more workers to the Lake Worth site due to concerns regarding slowing productivity. Advanced Roofing dismissed several workers in addition to Petitioner on October 3, 2016, based on absenteeism and decreased productivity. After being dismissed by Advanced Roofing, Aerotek offered to place Petitioner elsewhere. Because it would be approximately eight weeks before Aerotek would have another assignment for Petitioner, he declined reassignment and accepted a settlement package. Allegations of Drug Use and Safety Hazards After he was told not to return to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner contacted the City of Lake Worth by email to complain about drug use, intoxication, and fighting among employees. Petitioner also wrote Rob Kornahrens, Advanced Roofing's president, making similar allegations and detailing how workers were instructed by supervisors how to pass drug tests by pinning a condom with clean urine from another person to the inside of their pants to keep it at body temperature and using it to fill the urine drug test container. Petitioner contends he also raised safety concerns prior to his termination about co-workers fighting and using drugs on the job. Petitioner believes he was terminated in part due to these "whistle-blowing" activities. Advanced Roofing undertook an investigation into Petitioner's post-termination allegations, including drug testing at the worksite of 23 workers. Two workers refused to test and six others failed. However, the investigation did not confirm the widespread drug use or on-the-job intoxication alleged by Petitioner. Advanced Roofing denies that its supervisors instructed employees how to fool the test. Further, no significant incidents of fighting at the Lake Worth project were brought to the attention of management before or after Petitioner's termination. Aerotek's Employment of Other Older Workers Petitioner claims he was the oldest worker of the crew at Advanced Roofing. However, Petitioner admitted that Calvin Palmer, age 63, also worked as an electrical helper/laborer for Advanced Roofing at the Lake Worth site while Petitioner was employed. Mr. Palmer, who was hired as a laborer with electrical experience through another temporary service, has become a regular employee of Advanced Roofing and currently earns $23.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700134. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2017.
The Issue The issues are based upon an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Phillip E. Sheffield, Respondent. In particular, Respondent is said to have violated the building code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida by failing to obtain a building permit before commencing construction work related to a roofing project and building the roof to a slope that was contrary to that local building code. For violations of the City of Jacksonville building code, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willful or deliberate violation and disregard for the applicable building code of the municipality. Finally, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes by failing to subcontract roofing work.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Respondent is and at all material times has been licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida. He holds license number CC C026475. He is the qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc. In July, 1986, B & P Roofing, Inc. performed a pre- closing roof inspection of the 1029 McKean residence at the request of the real estate broker handling the sale. The report, dated July 31, 1986, estimated that it would cost $1400 to reroof the flat roof areas and replace the skylights and $300 to replace some cracked tiles on the main, sloped roof. Noting that it was impossible to examine the roof membrane under the tiles, the report concludes that the repairs should be minimal. Chris and Heather Peterson purchased the 1029 McKean residence on August 9, 1986. In late December, 1986, or early January, 1987, the Petersons contacted B & P Roofing, Inc. and requested that they perform the roofing repairs identified in their earlier estimate. The parties agreed that B & P Roofing, Inc. would also replace two skylights for an additional $300. By Final Order filed on April 22, 1983, Petitioner reprimanded Respondent, as qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc., for failing to obtain a permit and inspection in connection with a residential roof installation. By Final Order filed January 23, 1984, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent, as qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc., for failure to obtain building permits on three different roofing jobs. As a result of these disciplinary actions, B & P Roofing, Inc. adopted a procedure by which each job could be readily checked in the office as to whether a permit had been obtained. A chart is posted in the office and each job is marked as to whether it requires a permit and, if so, whether a permit has been issued. After the Peterson job had been obtained but before work had begun, Richard Francis Xavier McFadden, the president of B & P Roofing, Inc. noticed that the Peterson job had been posted in the office, but the "permit" column had not been checked. He asked Patricia McFadden, his wife who was performing clerical work in the office, why no permit was required for the job. She told him that she had been told by someone at the Winter Park Building Department that one was not required. Mr. McFadden immediately telephoned the Winter Park Building Department to confirm that no permit would be required for the job. He spoke with Karen Clayton, who is the secretary of the Winter Park Building and Zoning Department and handles the issuance of permits, which may be ordered by telephone. Using a Roof Work Sheet dated January 7, 1987, Mr. McFadden described the job to Ms. Clayton. Ms. Clayton placed her hand over the telephone, checked with a nearby building inspector, and informed Mr. McFadden that no permit would be necessary. In fact, the scope of the job required the issuance of a building permit. Ms. Clayton testified that she did not understand at the time that she spoke with Mr. McFadden that an existing roof was being torn off. She also testified that she had not previously heard the phrase, ??90 pound reroofing felt,!? which Mr. McFadden used to describe the job. It is apparent that Mr. McFadden accurately described the job, but Ms. Clayton misunderstood the description and gave him the wrong advice. Without a permit, B & P Roofing, Inc. began the work on or about January 17, 1987, and completed the work in late January or early February, 1987. No inspection of the job was performed by the Winter Park Building Department during the job or immediately after its completion. After Petitioner commenced its investigation, B & P Roofing, Inc., at the investigator's suggestion, obtained a permit on June 30, 1987, and the job passed a final inspection performed on that date or shortly thereafter. Respondent was never aware of the Peterson job until after it had been completed.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Findings Adopted, except that the last two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant, except that the last sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Poor workmanship or improper materials is generally not probative of the issues whether Respondent deliberately or through improper supervision failed to obtain a permit or inspection. The only situation in which poor workman- ship or improper materials might be relevant would be if the workmanship or material so deviated from the norm that Respondent and the employees of B & P Roofing, Inc. knew that the job could never pass an inspection. The evidence failed to prove such a deviation in this case. The testimony of Julian Garcia, Petitioner's expert witness, tended to prove such a deviation, but ultimately failed because of the inadequate familiarity of the wit- ness with the specifics of the Peterson job, such as the degree of scope present in the flat areas of the roof and the specific roofing material used in these areas. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence is adopted. Second sentence, although strictly speaking is true, is rejected to the extent that it implies that no inspection took place. Such an implication is against the greater weight of the evi- dence. Ms. Clayton's testimony explains the omission from the record. First, the building inspector whom Rich McFadden testified performed the inspection died shortly thereafter. Second, the inspector probably had no opportunity to record it before the file was closed because the inspection likely took place on the same day or within days of the closing of the file. Ms. Clayton's candid testimony in this regard offers little basis for inferring that the absence of a record entry means no inspection took place, especially in view of the positive testimony of Mr. McFadden that he accom- panied the inspector to the house for the final inspection. Adopted, except that two telephone contacts took place before the work began. Rejected as unnecessary and against the greater weight of the evidence. Mr. and Mrs. McFadden testified in detail to the circumstances surrounding why no permit was obtained. Against such detailed testimony, Respondent's questionnaire response is entitled to little weight. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. There was an insufficient predicate for much of Mr. Garcia's testimony for the reasons set forth in paragraph 3 above. 11-12. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Sunner, Esquire Post Office Box 1717 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor by obtaining a permit for a roofing job performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether the work on the job failed to fully comply with the local building codes; Whether the Respondent gave a guarantee on the job and thereafter failed to reasonably honor the guarantee; and Whether Respondent failed to properly supervise the job site activity.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor, holding License No. RC0030450. Carol Kilgore is the daughter of Beula Relihan, who owns a rental home located at 207 East Selma in Tampa, Florida. Mrs. Relihan is 86 years old, and for several years Mrs. Kilgore has been managing the property. In early 1987, Mrs. Kilgore was involved in obtaining estimates to replace the roof at the rental home. After obtaining estimates from contractors listed in the yellow pages, which Mrs. Kilgore felt to be high, Mrs. Kilgore responded to an advertisement for roofing work located in the Money Saver. She called the number listed in the advertiser, talked to Leroy Rison, and asked him to come to the house and give her an estimate. On or about February 26, 1987, Leroy Rison and his nephew, Gary Terrell, visited Mrs. Kilgore after looking at the job site, and wrote out an estimate for replacing the roof of $1,650.00. Mr. Terrell wrote the proposal which reflected the work to be done, the price, and the proposed beginning and finishing date. However, before any contract was entered into, Mrs. Kilgore discovered that neither Rison or Terrell were licensed contractors. She explained that she wanted only a licensed contractor who could pull the permit to perform the work. Although Mr. Terrell and Mr. Rison are willing to work for a homeowner if the homeowner will obtain the permit, Mrs. Kilgore insisted that she wanted a licensed contractor. Therefore, Mr. Rison recommended the Respondent, and later called the Respondent to advise him of the job. The next day, February 27, 1987, Respondent met Mrs. Kilgore and wrote a contract proposal on a form with a printed heading "MacDill Roofing", to which in handwriting was added "& Services." Respondent operates under the name of, and is the qualifying agent for, MacDill Services. The contract prepared by the Respondent merely copied the proposal submitted by Terrell and Rison, including the same price and the same misspelled words. The contract was accepted and signed by Ms. Kilgore's mother. Mrs. Kilgore paid Respondent $650.00, with the balance to be paid upon successful completion of the contract. Work was scheduled to begin the following day, Saturday, February 28, 1987 and be completed by Monday, March 2, 1987. The following Saturday work began. Respondent obtained the permit for the job, and apparently purchased the materials and had them delivered. Leroy Rison worked on the job and hired the laborers. Gary Terrell also worked on the job. One of the men Rison hired, Earl, worked for a roofing company during the week but did not have a license. Mr. Rison could not remember the name of any of the other men who worked on the job. Leroy Rison was not an employee of MacDill Roofing or MacDill Services, but he had worked for Respondent on other occasions. Although Respondent contends that he went by the job site on three or four occasions, staying at the job site between 1 and 2 hours on each occasion, his testimony is not credible. Charles Doty, who was the tenant in the rental home, had received a leg injury which forced him to stay home during this entire period of time. The only time Mr. Doty was gone was for an hour and half on Saturday to attend a therapy session. Mr. Doty never saw Respondent on the job site, although he had heard Respondent's name mentioned by Mr. Rison. Mrs. Kilgore also visited the job site on several occasions and she never saw the Respondent at the job site. Respondent simply did not supervise the job site activities. On March 3, 1987, the roof was scheduled for final inspection by the building department. Mrs. Kilgore went to the house to wait for the building inspector. After several hours, she left to get a soft drink. She was gone only five minutes, but when she returned, she discovered that the building inspector had come and gone, and a "green tag", indicating that the house had passed inspection, had been left on the porch. Mrs. Kilgore was very upset because she felt that the roofing work had not been done properly. She went to the building supervisor at City Hall and asked him if he could send the inspector back to the house so that she could point out the problems. The building supervisor agreed to send the inspector back to the house. The building department inspector was Terry Scott. On March 3, 1987, Mr. Scott had approximately 20 or 25 inspections to do. When he first went to the house he just looked around quickly and left a green tag. He admitted that a thorough inspection was only done if a homeowner complained. When Mr. Scott returned to the house on March 3, 1987, he still did not do a thorough inspection. However, he did issue a "red tag" which listed certain deficiencies that would have to be corrected before the roof could pass inspection. The red tag required that the contractor "replace bad wood where needed and install drip-edge where needed." Normally, when a red tag is issued, the contractor corrects the deficiency and calls for another inspection. That did not occur in this case. On April 9, 1987, Inspector Scott met Mr. Park at the job-site to discuss problems with the roof. On that day, a more thorough inspection was performed. Another red tag was issued and the following deficiencies were noted: "Bad wood not replaced--Wall flashing not properly installed. Flashing around chimney not proper--Felt under drip-edge." Respondent did not correct these deficiencies and never called for another inspection. The permit expired without the roof being approved by final inspection. Although not all the deficiencies noted in the inspection constitute code violations, the Tampa Building Code does require that rotten wood be replaced and the contract specified that the rotten decking would be replaced. Nevertheless, after Respondent completed the job, rotten wood remained in place. The replacement of the rotten wood was noted in both red tags. Respondent never attempted to correct this deficiency. On the day the property initially passed inspection, March 3, 1987, Respondent called Mrs. Kilgore and requested the remaining $1,000 owed on the contract price. Mrs. Kilgore refused to pay the Respondent since she was dissatisfied with the work and the first red tag had issued. At some point, apparently after the red tag issued in April, Respondent decided that he was not going to get any more money from Mrs. Kilgore. Other than asking for the money on March 3, 1987, Respondent has not attempted to collect the remainder of the money from Ms. Kilgore; however, he has also not attempted to correct the code violations and other deficiencies. Since Respondent did not collect the remainder of the money owed, Respondent did not pay Leroy Rison, and Mr. Rison did not pay the laborers who performed the work. As the contractor on this job, Respondent had full responsibility for ensuring that the work was done properly and that the roof passed final inspection. Respondent failed to supervise the work on the job, and the re- roofing was not done in a workmanlike manner. In essence, Respondent abdicated his responsibilities as the contractor on the job, and allowed the work to be performed by unsupervised unlicensed persons. The roofing material used was supposed to be fiberglass shingle guaranteed for 20 years. There was no evidence presented that something other than the material specified was used or that the shingles were not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The roof did not leak after the work was completed. No evidence relating to a guarantee, other than the guarantee related to the shingles, was presented. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 10, 1986, a 61 paragraph Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondent which alleged, among other things, willful violation of local law; failure to qualify a firm through which he was operating; gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of contracting; failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent; and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489. On March 26, 1987, Respondent signed a stipulated settlement with the Department of Professional Regulation admitting to all the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The stipulated disposition was that Respondent's licensure would be suspended for two years and indefinitely thereafter until an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 was paid. The stipulation was adopted by Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board rendered June 9, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revocation of Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted, generally except the date of February 26, 1987 appears to be the appropriate date, rather than February 7, 1987, in that the estimate from Larry Rison was obtained one day before the contract was entered into with Respondent. Accepted, generally. Accepted as true, but unnecessary and irrelevant, since Rison and Terrell did not enter into a contract for the job. 7.-14. Accepted. 15. Accepted as true; however, the last two sentences were considered unnecessary. 16.-19. Accepted, generally. First sentence accepted, sentences two and three rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Rejected as redundant and for the reasons set forth under Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6. First sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence, second sentence accepted, except as to Respondent's intent. Third and fourth sentences accepted in general. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Francis A. Park 6109 South MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida 33611 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's contractor license number CG C022926, issued by the State of Florida, based upon the violations of Section 489.105(4), 489.113(3), 489.117(2), 489.115(1)(b), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), alleged in three administrative complaints filed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Richard Lee Melvin, was a licensed contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C022926, by the State of Florida. The Armstrong Job On or about February 26, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong entered into a contract with Sunshine State Homes to do certain siding work and roofing work on two mobile homes owned by the Armstrongs located at 4605 and 4607 Orange Drive in Holiday, Florida. The cost of the repairs under the contract was $6,400. Although the Respondent did not sign that contract, his name and license number appeared on it, he applied for and was granted the necessary Pasco County permit for Sunshine State Homes using his licensure. At the time he applied for the permit, the Respondent knew that Sunshine State Homes was not licensed since he was considering qualifying that company. The permit that the Respondent received from Pasco County required, among other things, that all the Respondent's work conform with the requirements of state and county codes and regulations. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor for Sunshine State Homes even though his certificate did not contain the name Sunshine State Homes. After the signing of the contract, work began on both structures. The roof was replaced on the main structure, and the Armstrongs were informed that the Rainbow Roof System contracted for could not be installed. After work began, it rained and because of improper construction techniques, both mobile homes flooded. Representatives of Sunshine State Homes attempted to correct the problems, but when it rained again, there was substantial leaking in both mobile homes. A rug from the main mobile home had to be removed. Another attempt was made to correct the leaks at the rental unit by re-coating the roof with sealant. Again, it rained, and both mobile homes flooded. Both mobile homes had leaks where, prior to construction beginning, they did not have leaks. Insurance covered $1,200 of the damage to the main mobile home. There also was damage that was not covered by insurance. The type of roof put on the main coach resulted in leaks all along the seam between the roof over the main coach and the roof over the addition to the main structure. The water leaked through the walls of the mobile home, causing water damage. On or about April 7, 1987, the roofs supposedly were finished, and the contractor wanted the rest of his money. The Armstrongs refused to give the balance of the money until another heavy rain was experienced. After representatives from Sunshine State Homes made various threats, the owners paid Sunshine State all but $900 of the contract price. The $900 was withheld to cover the water damage sustained as a result of the leaks. The work that was done was required to be inspected by Pasco County. The work had not been inspected because neither the Respondent nor anyone else from Sunshine State had called for inspections. The work that was done deteriorated over the summer months. On October 14, 1987, the homeowners contracted with Holiday Aluminum to replace the two mobile home roofs in accordance with the contract previously entered into between the homeowners and Sunshine State Homes. It cost the homeowners $4,300 to have the two new roofs installed. They have not experienced any problems with the roofs installed by Holiday Aluminum. The work Sunshine State did under the Respondent's licensure was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Respondent and Tropical Exteriors The Respondent was contacted by Jeff Gaston, in mid-November, 1986. Gaston wanted the Respondent to qualify Gaston's company, Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc. The Respondent met with Gaston and Gaston's attorney, and the Respondent understood that it would take time for all of the paperwork to be concluded. Towards the end of March, 1987, the Respondent started having concerns about his business relationship with Gaston and Tropical. However, the Respondent took no action to terminate that relationship or otherwise advise any governmental agencies involved or homeowners that he was not associated with Tropical until May 13, 1987. There was a continuous business relationship between the Respondent and Tropical for the period November, 1986, through May 13, 1987. The Respondent never qualified Tropical. The Respondent knew that Tropical was using his name in connection with its business after November, 1986. He also thought he would be given notice of any contracts Tropical entered into. But Tropical entered into contracts with the Clems and the Warzyboks and began work without telling the Respondent. The homeowners relied on Tropical's representations regarding the Respondent's association with the business. The Clem Job In November, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Clem knew that they needed a new roof on their residence located 10511 - 53rd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, because the shingles were curling. However, they did not have any leaks in the roof. In November, 1986, the Clems were contacted by Millie Morris regarding the roof repairs. Morris stated that she worked for Tropical and was representing U.S. Steel. She advised the Clems that she would like to use the Clem home in an advertising campaign. The Clems did not have the cash money to pay for the repairs and needed financing. As part of that financing, Morris stated that she would give the Clems a $300 rebate on contracting resulting from any leads the Clems gave her. The Clems were able to obtain a second mortgage on their home which provided for the financing of the needed improvements. On or about February 9, 1987, the Clems entered into a contract with Tropical. At the time of the signing of the contract, Morris again reaffirmed to the Clems that any leads the Clems gave Morris that resulted in a contract would result in the Clems being paid the sum of $300. The Clems put $1,000 down at the time of signing the contract and were to pay $1,500 during the course of the job and $2,500 on completion of the job. Before entering into the contract, the Clems relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and a representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Clems called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical to see if any complaints had been filed. The contract provided for, among other things, the removal of the old roof, installation of a new roof, the installation of soffit and facia, the installation of doors and windows and a guaranty on all the work. Shortly after the contract was signed and work was started on the roof, the Clems told Morris the people across the street from them needed repairs. Those people signed a contract with Tropical to have their roof replaced. The work was done, but the Clems received nothing for giving Tropical the customer lead. After the work was done, the Clems dealt with Morris and Gaston. Several times after the job was started, the Clems tried to get Gaston on the job site because the roof was leaking, there was no flashing around the drain pipes and vents, the aluminum edging was bent in many places and the siding had fallen on the ground. Several times when a representative of Tropical was on the job site, Mrs. Clem pointed out to them that the aluminum was bent in places, the seams were cut crooked, there were unnecessary splices in the aluminum, there were bad cuts around certain pipes, there was an electric light left hanging, the wrong weather stripping had been installed around the door, other weather stripping was not put up right, the windows were not sealed, the roof leaked, there was unnecessary tar on the shingles and there were aluminum overlaps facing the street, among other things. From that point forward, representatives of Tropical assured the Clems on many occasions that those problems would be corrected by a date certain, but the deadline was missed in every base. During the construction, the Clems agreed to pay Tropical the $1,500 due during the construction and $2,000 of the $2,500 that was due at the end of construction because a representative of Tropical explained to them that the job was near completion, Tropical needed the money to cover expenses and that Tropical would put in a bedroom window in the Clems residence at no charge. After many telephone conversations and on-site inspections by Tropical, all to no avail, Tropical agreed to finish the job if the Clems would pay him the remaining $500 and if the Clems would pay him an additional $150 for the bedroom window Otherwise, Tropical threatened to forfeit the $500 and not complete the job. The Clems agreed because they knew that it would cost them more than $500 to have the job completed by someone else. The job still was not competed, and the complaints were not corrected. The Clems called another siding contractor, who told the Clems that he would charge $750 just to correct the siding problems, that no permits had been pulled for the job and that the Clems should not allow any further work to be done until the permits had been pulled for the siding and the roof. When the building department received the siding contractor's inquiry regarding the permits, it contacted Tropical. The Clems had several conversations with their attorney, who advised the Clems that it would be cheaper to attempt to solve the problem with Tropical than to get a new contractor. Several attempts were made to have Tropical complete the job, but Tropical continuously failed to honor its agreements. The last time anyone from Tropical was on the job site was April 17, 1987. As of the hearing date, the complaints had not been corrected, and the work had not been completed in accordance with the contract. On or about March 13, 1987, the Respondent obtained a building permit from Pinellas County, Florida, for the installation of the aluminum soffit and facia work, only. Later, after the Respondent had terminated his relationship with Tropical, the job was inspected by the Department of Building Inspections of Pinellas County and was cited for violations of the applicable local codes which never were corrected. The work that was done was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Warzybok Case On or about January 14, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Warzybok, entered into a contract with Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., for the removal and replacement of the Warzyboks flat roof at their residence located at 6088 - 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and the representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Warzyboks called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., to see if any complaints had been filed. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks' old flat roof was leaking on the outside of an exterior wall but was not leaking inside. Shortly after the contract was signed, Tropical tore off the old roof, mopped one coat of tar over it, and after it started to rain, put some visqueen over the roof and left. Sometime during the following week, representatives of Tropical finished mopping, put some roof paper down and did some other miscellaneous work. Approximately one week later, Warzybok had the tile roof over the main house pressure cleaned (this roof was connected to the flat roof). When the water from the pressure cleaning came off the tile roof onto the flat roof, the water flooded the room underneath the flat roof. The Warzyboks also discovered that there were broken tiles on the roof over the main house. The flat roof was now leaking inside as well as outside. The Warzyboks attempted on numerous occasions to contact Tropical and have Tropical correct the problems and finish the work. Numerous appointments were made to finish the work and correct the problems, most of which were not kept. Whatever work was done by Tropical did not complete the job or correct the problems. At one point, Tropical sent out a new roofer, Bill Vance, who told the Warzyboks that the roof needed to be totally redone. Several months after the job was started, the homeowners called the City to get an inspection and determined that no permit had been obtained for the job. The City of St. Petersburg Building Department went to the Warzybok property and determined that there had been no permit issued and that the persons who were working on the premises were not licensed roofers. The building department placed a stop order on the work and told the Warzyboks that they needed a licensed roofer to complete the job. The job still has not been completed, and the problems have not been corrected. As of the hearing date, the Warzyboks have problem with leaking skylights, skylights covered with tar, a leaking fireplace, plaster being separated from the sheetrock because of water damage, roofing tiles that were not replaced after they were broken by Tropical and tar on the bottom of the roof, among other things. The Warzyboks got an estimate of $275 just to replace one piece of plaster adjacent to the fireplace only. Tropical started the roof as a three-ply roof and then changed the roof to a one-ply roof. There has been leaking at the chimney and at the skylights, which were not properly installed Some of the tile removed from the main roof at the point of tie-in with the flat roof has not been replaced properly and, in some places, has not been replaced at all. The Respondent, under whose license the work was done, did not know of, and did not properly supervise, the installation of the roof. The roof was installed in an incompetent manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board find the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.105(4), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m) , Florida Statutes, and that, as punishment, impose on the Respondent a fine of $5000, suspend the Respondent's license for three years and place the Respondent on probation for one year after termination of the suspension conditioned on completion of continuing education designated by the Board and on such other terms that the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5197, 88-5198 and 88-5199 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Sixth sentence, rejected because it was additional sealant, not fiberglass, that was put on the rental unit. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the "high ridge" rejected as not supported by the evidence but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Rejected that the owners held back $1,400 (they held back $900) but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the owners' telephone calls to the inspection department and the inspection results rejected as not supported by the evidence. First and penultimate sentences, accepted and incorporated. 10.-11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Subordinate and unnecessary. 13.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-33. Accepted and incorporated. 34. Proposed findings that the permit was pulled after the work for purposes of correcting the work rejected as not proven by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 35.-45. Accepted and incorporated. The estimate was for plaster, not "plastic." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (These rulings relate to the unnumbered paragraphs in the Respondent's March 23, 1989, letter, starting with the third paragraph. They are assigned consecutive paragraph numbers for purposes of these rulings.) Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. First and last sentences, accepted and incorporated. Second and third sentences, rejected as contrary to facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as unclear. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence unnecessary. First and third sentences, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; second sentence, accepted but unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated (although the unlicensed companies using the Respondent's name also did work and assumed responsibility for the jobs over which the Respondent exercised no control at all.) Second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Lee Melvin 12737 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard K. Willis, a registered roofing contractor licensed by Petitioner and holding license RC-0041275 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. His address of record is Winter Haven, Florida. Respondent and Jeffrey Smith entered into a contract in July of 1986. Under terms of the agreement, Smith, a chiropractor, agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $2,200 to re-roof the facility which served as Smith's home and office. The agreement signed by the parties contains a written guarantee that materials to be used in the project would meet specifications set forth in the document. Further, the guarantee stated that work would be completed in "a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." The project was completed by Respondent and Smith paid him the agreed upon amount of $2,200 in July of 1986. About three weeks after completion of the job, Smith noticed a leak in the roof and telephoned Respondent. Two or three weeks later and after several more telephone calls from Smith, Respondent returned to the job site. By that time, interior damage to the ceiling tiles had been sustained. The tiles became discolored by leaking water and started to collapse. Respondent proceeded to patch the leaking roof with tar. In June of 1987, Smith's facility developed a second leak in the roof over the back portion of the house. Respondent returned, reviewed the problem and agreed to tear off the leaking section of the roof and replace it. As a result of this action by Respondent, the leakage increased. More extensive damage was caused by water leaking down door frames and across the ceiling of the house. Respondent had also promised that he would put a "tarp" over Smith's roof to temporarily stop the leakage until repairs could be effected, but such covering never materialized. After Respondent's second attempt to fix the roof, Smith advised him that the leakage was continuing. Smith then tried several times without success to communicate with Respondent and get him to return to the job site. Finally, after Smith contacted local government building officials, Respondent returned and stopped the leakage. The repairs came too late to prevent ceiling damage which cost Smith $400 to repair. When a third leak developed in the roof in February of 1989, Smith hired another contractor to fix the leak for the sum of $60. Petitioner provided expert testimony which establishes that Respondent demonstrated incompetence in the practice of roof contracting. Further, the work performed by Respondent did not meet the terms of the guarantee he gave to Smith. These conclusions are based on the fact that workmanship provided by Respondent failed to meet standard practices of the industry. Such failure is demonstrated by the irregularity with which surface material was applied to the roof; the lack of sufficient gravel; the lack of uniform distribution of that gravel; missing metal flashing and lifted or separated flashing at the vertical surfaces of the roof; and improper installation of flashing around the plumbing vent exiting through the roof. Respondent's previous disciplinary history with Petitioner consists of an administrative fine of $250 on June 19, 1985, and letter of guidance issued on August 14, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, (1988) and revoking his license as a roofing contractor in accordance with provisions of Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-17. Addressed in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard K. Willis 2106 Winter Lake Road Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
