The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January 1992.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented, Respondent's admissions and matters deemed admitted due to Respondent's failure to timely respond to Petitioner's Second Request for Admissions: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered air conditioning contractor with license number RA-0035721. He was the qualifying agent for Wallace's Air Conditioning and Heating. Respondent's address of record is 4710 Cypress Ridge Place, Tampa, Florida 33624, and it was to this address that notice of the hearing was sent. At no time prior to the hearing did Respondent contact counsel for Petitioner or the undersigned regarding any problem he had with the date scheduled for this hearing. Respondent did not appear, and was not represented at the hearing which commenced at 9:00 a.m. on May 11, 1988. However, at 1:56 p.m. on the day of hearing, a letter from Respondent addressed to Petitioner's counsel was filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida. This letter was postmarked on May 9, 1988 and requests rescheduling of the hearing due to his being out of town on "urgent business." By Order entered on May 13, 1988, Respondent's untimely and insufficient motion for continuance was denied for failure to comply with Rule 22I-6.017, Florida Administrative Code, and this case has proceeded to the issuance of this Recommended Order in accordance with the procedures established at hearing. On or about March 18, 1986, Respondent, as qualifying agent for Wallace's Air Conditioning and Heating, entered into a contract with General Engineering and Machine Company for the installation of heating, ventilation and cooling services (HVAC) at the Sebring Square Plaza shopping mall in Sebring, Florida. The work to be performed included the installation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and temperature control systems for stores in the mall, which included Zayre's Department Store and thirty "strip stores." The contract price for this work was $275,460. Respondent thereafter began work on the mall under this contract. However, he has never held any certificate of competency, occupational license, or registration in the City of Sebring, as required by local ordinance sections 5-18 and 5-19. On or about May, 1986 Respondent entered into a subcontract agreement with Long's Air Conditioning and Heating for sheetmetal duct work, venting of exhaust fans and installation of flex duct and grilles at the Sebring Square Plaza. The original amount of Respondent's contract with Long's Air Conditioning was $69,200, but this was increased by agreement to $72,200. On or about June 19, 1986, work on the thirty "strip stores" was deleted from this subcontract agreement, and the contract price was then reduced by $3,760, making a final contract price of $68,440. Respondent received draw requests totaling $68,440 from Long's Air Conditioning for work performed under this subcontract. Although all contracted work was performed by Long's Air Conditioning, Respondent has only made payments totaling $66,500, leaving an unpaid amount of $1,940. In connection with his work on the Sebring Square Plaza, Respondent purchased equipment and supplies from Florida Air Conditioners, Inc., in the total amount of $122,019.80, but made no payments on this account. On October 6, 1986, Respondent's account with Florida Air Conditioners was paid in full by Highway 27 Associates, the owners of the Sebring Square Plaza, who in turn charged this amount to the general contractor, General Engineering and Machine Company, by reducing the amount they paid to said general contractor on the Sebring Square Plaza. Charles R. Baldwin was the general administrator on this shopping mall job for the general contractor, General Engineering and Machine Company. In accordance with his subcontract agreement with Respondent, if Respondent did not pay his materialmen, the general contractor was responsible, and, in fact, in this case the general contractor was charged for payments made by the mall owner on Respondent's account at Florida Air Conditioners. Respondent failed to regularly attend weekly job site status meetings with Baldwin. When schedules were established, Respondent voiced no objection, but he then frequently failed to complete work in accordance with those schedules. Respondent made little effort to complete his work on time, or to make up for delays. He failed to supervise the work he was performing at the Sebring Square Plaza. On or about June 24, 1986 Respondent walked off the job without completing the work which he had contracted to perform, and this caused further delay in the mall's completion since Baldwin had to find another contractor to complete Respondent's job. Baldwin paid Respondent $174,467.70 on June 18, 1986 in connection with this job after Respondent signed an affidavit certifying that he had paid all his materialmen and subcontractors. The record establishes that said affidavit was false. With the amount Baldwin was charged for Respondent's unpaid account with Florida Air Conditioners, and the amount paid on June 18, 1986, General Engineering and Machine Company paid or was charged approximately $296,000 for work performed by Respondent, although their contract with Respondent was only $275,460. According to Bernard Verse, who was accepted as an expert in commercial construction, Respondent's failure to pay for supplies and equipment, and his failure to complete his contract with General Engineering and Machine Company constitute misconduct in contracting. In addition, Respondent failed to properly supervise the work he was performing, and for which he contracted, on this job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license number RA- 0035721 for one (1) year and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said administrative fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 23rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5050 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8 Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Frank W. Wallace 4710 Cypress Ridge Place Tampa, Florida 33624 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an extension of time of 565 days for the completion of the project which is the subject of this proceeding, as opposed to the 367 days time extension which was granted for completion, and thereby is free from liquidated damages in the amount of $31,680.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1973, a contract was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent for the construction of Phase II, University of North Florida, at Jacksonville, Florida, State Project No. BR-6504/7801-D. The Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner For Construction of Buildings, through its Article 4.2 identifies the conditions of liquidated damages. Article 8.5 states the conditions for settlement of claims and disputes. Contained as part of the contract, was standard form AlA Document, A201, American Institute of Architects, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. Within the document A201, was Article 4.5, warranty of the work by the contractor; Article 8.3.1 discussing the matter of delays and extensions and Article 13.2.1 discussing uncovering and correcting. All these contract conditions are found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A" which was admitted into evidence. In pursuit of the contract obligations, the Petitioner entered into a contract with W. W. Gay, Mechanical Contractor, Inc., 523 Estelle Lane, Jacksonville, Florida. This contract with W. W. Gay as subcontractor contemplated the installation of mechanical parts of the contract work, and the agreement between the Petitioner and W. W. Gay is Petitioner's Exhibit "B", admitted into evidence. Part of the work to be performed by W. W. Gay involved the installation of a hot water piping system. According to Mr. W. W. Gay, President of W. W. Gay, Mechanical Contractor, Inc., 95 percent of the pipe to be used in the Phase II project was already available, having been left over from Phase I of the University of North Florida Project. This pipe had been stored for as long as 16 months, exposed to the weather. The storage itself was in accordance with the conditions of modification to contract document prepared by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Architects, Engineers and Planners of Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit "C" sets out the requirements for storing the aforementioned pipe. In addition, Mr. Gay testified that some of the type resin epoxy utilized in the Phase I project was left over and was stored in a facility whose temperatures reached 90 degrees Fahrenheit, although the recommended storage temperature for the substance was 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The piping spoken of was a type manufactured by Ric-wil Manufacturing known as FRP, Dual Gard 250. The pipe was identified in the course of the hearing by Carl Bowles, General Superintendent for W. W. Gay, as being a fiberglass type pipe. This pipe had been selected in lieu of the job specification pipe which is a form of asbestos pipe manufactured by Johns Manville, due to the fact that the Johns Manville pipe had not been approved for release by Johns Manville's quality control department. The substitution of the Ric-wil pipe was approved by the project architect, John Brickert, who was also the project manager and an employee of Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The approval for substitution was on the basis that the Ric-wil pipe was acceptable because it was a non-metallic pipe and the Johns Manville pipe was a non-metallic pipe. Approval for the substitution had been granted in Phase I and carried over into Phase II. In addition to the hot water piping system in Phase II, W. W. Gay installed a chill water system using a PVC type pipe identified as Ric-wil Chil Gard. Prior to the installation of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe in Phase I, W. W. Gay had never installed that type piping system. In the course of the installation of the piping system in Phase I, some problems were experienced with the installation which were not similar to the problems that would be experienced in the construction of the Phase II University of North Florida project. Phase I was completed utilizing the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe. In the beginning of Phase II, W. W. Gay ran the cold water system and hot water system in a common area underground from valve pit one to valve pit six, in order to put into operation buildings 008 and 009 of the University of North Florida. These locations are shown on the engineering drawing which is Petitioner's Exhibit "K", entered into evidence. Installation of the two piping systems commenced in October of 1973. Sometime in the middle part of November, 1973, a test was conducted on the hot and chilled water systems between valve pits one and six. The hot water system passed the test. The chilled water system failed. Later in November, the chilled water system also passed. This successful test opened up the hot and chilled water systems to buildings 008, 009 and 011. Further tests were conducted in early January, 1974 and again the hot and chilled water lines passed. In January, 1974, W. W. Gay began to run the hot water piping system from valve pit six to valve pit seven and in the area of building 010 found that the line would not hold pressure. A decision was made to retest between valve pit one and six, a leek as found in the area of valve pit one. This leak was discovered in late January, 1974. A subsequent test of the hot water piping system was run in early February, 1974, between valve pit one and valve pit six and into the buildings 008, 009 and 011. This test failed. In the middle of February, 1974, a further test was made from valve pit one to the end of the line, to the northwest corner of building 011, and this test failed. For the balance of February, 1974, time was spent trying to repair the leaks in the hot water piping system. These continued failures in the system brought about two meetings to discuss the solution of the problem. These meetings will be discussed subsequently. At the time the subcontractor was experiencing problems with the installation of the hot water system, problems were also being experienced with the chill water system. Throughout March, the chill water system was continuing to be installed and in late March a leak was discovered opposite building 010. This leak was repaired. In mid April a leak was found in the chill water system in the area of valve pit six and an attempt to repair it was unsuccessful. Problems continued until June, 1974, at which time replacement of the water pipe and fittings was begun between valve pit one and six. Further testing showed a failure in the chill water piping. Finally in September, 1974, the chill water system passed. One of the problems with the chill water piping system concerned the couplings for that system which were found to be defective. An example of the problems associated with the couplings in the chill water system is demonstrated through Exhibit "N", by the Petitioner, which is a cross section of one of the couplings which was removed after being installed in the Phase II University of North Florida Project. This cross section shows numerous surface irregularities, which promote leaks. On February 28, 1974, a meeting was held in the offices of Reynolds, Smith and Hills which was attended by the project manager, John Brickert; representatives of the Petitioner; representatives of Ric-wil, Incorporated; representatives of the University of North Florida; representatives of the subcontractor W. W. Gay, and other representatives of Reynolds, Smith and Hills associated with the project. Varying theories were advanced in trying to explain the problems associated with the hot water piping system. From the subcontractor's point of view, expressed by W. W. Gay, this difficulty was not obvious because it was his contention that the pipe was being installed according to the directions of the manufacturer's representative who was on the job site for some 90 percent of the installation. Jack Green, the mechanical construction specialist for Reynolds, Smith and Hills, testified that from his on site observations, which occurred about the general time frame of the meeting of February 28, 1974, that he had seen water in the trenches around the building 010. Furthermore, according to Green, the subcontractor had undercut the ditches and had attempted to install the hot water piping system while the ditch was too wet, using loose soil which was not compacted. In addition Mr. Green stated that he felt that the joints were dirty and moist and had not been sanded properly. Finally, Mr. Green stated that he had stopped the installation of the pipe because of the conditions mentioned. The deposition upon written questions of C. G. Schoor, Service Manager with Ric-wil, said that he had been at the job site on February 11, 1974, and had noticed water leaks in the fringes and couplings of the hot water pipes. He felt that in the area of the flanges there was improper sanding because when the pipe was pulled out, the surface was clean and resin remained in the flange. He also commented in his deposition that there was improper surface sanding and a large area of entrapped air on one of the 10" couplings pulled out between points two and three on the second joint north of two and this occurred during an initial 150 lb. hydro test. In one joint the resin epoxy had not hardened and was still in a plastic state, according to Ben Schoor. In speculating about the plasticity, Schoor said that it could have been promoted by long storage of the material, or contamination of the material which constitutes the resin epoxy or improper mixture of the two components of the epoxy resin on the part of the subcontractor. He felt that this plasticity would probably promote leaks but he observed no such leaks where the resin epoxy was plastic. The deposition on written questions of Ben Schoor was entered into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "B". Discussion at the February 28, 1974, meeting considered two alternatives: First, to allow for the further installation of the Ric-wil Dual Gard System using the expertise of the Ric-wil employees; second, to substitute the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe with Ric-wil Hi-Gard Pipe, which is steel. A further meeting on March 4, 1974, was held with representatives of the Petitioner; the subcontractor, W. W. Gay; Reynolds, Smith and Hills, by John Brickert, and other representatives of that firm. It was decided at that meeting, that due to the effect of oil shortages causing the unavailability of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe and fittings, the Ric-wil Company would design a pipe system to utilize steel pipes, and the subcontractor would determine the necessary adjustments to use the steel pipe. At this meeting the subcontractor, W. W. Gay, requested some relief from possible liquidated damages, and the minutes of that meeting indicate that consideration of that request was deferred. According to notes from time sheets of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit "A", installation of the steel piping system was commenced on July 1, 1974, and completed August 21, 1974. Minutes of the meetings of February 28, 1974, and March 4, 1974, are found as Petitioner's Exhibits "E" and "F" respectively, admitted into evidence. After the March 4, 1974, meeting, discussion was continued on the question of liquidated damages in view of the substitution of the type of piping, and conjecture was made about the problems with the piping system. In correspondence of March 22, 1974, Neil A. Porter, Vice President of the Petitioner, makes reference to the liquidated damages question in this letter to John Brickert, and suggests holding the matter in abeyance. This letter enclosed a letter from W. W. Gay dated March 21, 1974, directed to the Petitioner, which sets out the approximate time to complete the system will be 105 days. The Gay letter also states opinions by Mr. Gay as to what was determined in the course of the February 28, 1974, meeting on the subject of the cause of the problems with the Ric-wil Dual Gard piping. Mr. Gay made further comments that he felt that the change in temperature, from 70 degrees to 90 degrees as stored, adversely effects the resin epoxy and that the ultra violet rays of the sun also effected the pipe which was stored outside. Mr. Gay's letter of March 21, 1974 and Mr. Brickert's letter of March 22, 1974 are Petitioner's composite Exhibit "G", which was admitted into evidence. Mr. Brickert responded to Mr. Porter by letter of March 29, 1974, in which he suggests the question of liquidated damages cannot be addressed at present because the amount of delay is unknown, and Reynolds, Smith and Hills is not a part of the contract and cannot accept a stipulation for extension. This letter is Petitioner's Exhibit "H", which was admitted into evidence. On April 19, 1974, a change order was entered by Mr. Brickert which allowed for the substitution of Ric-wil Hi-Gard steel pre-insulated pipe for the Ric-wil Dual Gard 250 plastic pre-insulated pipe. Page three of that change order indicates the rationale for accepting such a substitute and alludes to the possibility of a time extension which is not subject to identification at the moment of the change order, but which will be requested. This change order is Petitioner's Exhibit "I", which was admitted. A further statement on the Chil Gard pipe and the problems with the couplings is found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit "J", a letter of May 29, 1974, with attachments from John T. Brickert to Neil A. Porter. By Change Order #19 and the accompanying letter of explanation from John T. Brickert, addressed to Jack C. Koons, Administrator, Department of General Services; the project manager has denied, and the Respondent has agreed to such denial, of any time extension conditioned upon problems with the piping systems. This denial by the letter of September 8, 1975, is premised on the conclusion that any failure on the system was due to faulty installation or failure of material which was subject to the control of the Petitioner. As a result of Change Order #19, 198 days of time overrun at $160.00 a day have been assessed as liquidated damages, totaling $31,680.00. These items of Change Order #19 and the correspondence alluded to are found in composite Exhibit "D" by the Petitioner, which was admitted into evidence. A review of the evidence offered on the question of the cause of the problems in the hot water system which was being installed as Ric-wil Dual Gard indicates a possible problem associated with the manufacture of Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe; a possible problem with the storage of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe at the job site for a period of up to 16 months prior to its installation; possible problems associated with the storage of the resin epoxy at temperatures which would damage the compound; possible contamination of the resin epoxy; possible improper mixture of the resin epoxy and possible improper application of the resin epoxy on the surface of the piping; possible improper sanding of the surfaces of the pipe where it was joined; possible improper preparation of the ditch in which the pipe was being placed, and possible improper installation of the pipe itself. From an examination of the testimony and the evidence offered in support of that testimony, the cause of the problems with the pipe would appear to be a combination of all the factors mentioned above, but it cannot be discerned with reasonable exactness what the percentage of responsibility is in determining the factors which lead to the rejection of the Ric-wil Dual Gard System in favor of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard System. From the testimony and the exhibits offered on the question of the problems associated with the Chil Water System, the testimony points to defective couplings as the responsible agent for the problems associated with that installation. These defective couplings are found to be the primary cause of the problems associated with the Chill Water System. On the question of liquidated damages penalties to be associated with a substitution of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard System for the Ric-wil Dual Gard System testimony was offered, as described before, by W. W. Gay who was under the impression that he was receiving relief from any liquidated damages and thought that relief would be afforded. This testimony is supported by the testimony of Neil Porter, the Vice President of the Petitioner who likewise had such an understanding. It is also supported by the testimony of John Daniel Cheatwood, the President of Petitioner, who was in attendance at the March 4, 1974 meeting at the offices of Reynolds Smith and Hills. In addition, Jack Green, Field Representative Mechanical, for Reynolds, Smith and Hills recalled that W. W. Gay requested relief from any possible liquidated damages for substitution of the pipe and the appearance was given that some consideration would be made of the necessity for extension of time. Mr. Brickert, as spokesman for the owner, felt that the meeting of March 4, 1974, did not commit the owner to grant an extension, and upon ultimate assessment an extension of time associated with the substitution of the pipe was denied. It is found as a matter of fact that the owner through negotiations with the contractor and/or his subcontractor, W. W. Gay, and through the Petitioner's Exhibit "I" agreed to an extension of time for the installation of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard Pipe in substitution for the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe.
Recommendation It is recommended that the relief requested from the imposition of liquidated damages due to the delays associated with the installation of the hot water system and chill water system, which were assessed as 198 days at a $160.00 per day, for a total of $31,860, be reduced in an amount which would equate to the time necessary to install the substituted hot water system, and be upheld in the amount which would equate to the time necessary to install the chill water system. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 23rd day of June, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Stevens, III, Esquire For the Executive Director Department of General Services State of Florida 725 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 S. Gordon Blalock, Esquire Suite 2301 Independent Square Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: Respondent, John Anthony Fantasia, is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CA C024378. Mr. Joseph Wilensky resides in a single family home at 1020 N.E. 160th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 23, 1983 there was a fire at Wilensky's home. The fire was primarily located in the basement near the oil heating unit, some type of electric heating device which utilized a heat strip and part of the central air conditioning unit. The air conditioning and heating systems all sustained damage in the fire. A few days after the fire, an insurance adjuster went to Wilensky's home and recommended a general contractor by the name of H. E. Nason. Nason inspected the damage at the Wilensky home and later sent Respondent over to inspect the damage for an estimate. Nason had previously used Respondent as a sub- contractor on other projects. The Respondent submitted a bid of $2,600 to Nason to install an air conditioning system with a heat strip in the Wilensky home. Thereafter, Nason entered into a contract with Wilensky to make the repairs and sub-contracted the entire job to Respondent. In January 1984, approximately one week after the contract was signed, Respondent, with the assistance of a single helper, removed the old air conditioning and heating units and installed a new central air conditioning/heating unit. Mr. Wilensky was at home while the work was performed. Wilensky observed the Respondent perform some of the work but did not watch Respondent the whole time. Wilensky was talking with his wife either in the dining room or in the kitchen when Respondent informed him that he had just finished with the switch and that the unit was "all set." Prior to installing the new unit, no work permits were pulled nor inspections called for by either Respondent or Mr. Nason. The Respondent believed that Nason, as general contractor, was obligated to pull all necessary work permits. The Respondent connected the new air conditioning/ heating unit to an electrical box which served as an on/off disconnect switch. The on/off disconnect switch was wired to the power source "ahead of the main." "Ahead of the main" is a term used in the electrical industry meaning that an apparatus is wired directly to a power source, by-passing the fuse box or main circuit breaker entirely. In this manner, the apparatus cannot be turned off from the fuse box. Such wiring violates the National Electrical Code, presents a serious hazard of fire and reflects gross negligence and incompetence. The evidence did not establish that the Respondent wired the on/off disconnect switch to the power source when he installed the new unit. There was at least an equal amount of credible evidence that the disconnect switch had been utilized with the previous unit and was in place prior to Respondent's installation work. Shortly after the unit was installed, Wilensky became dissatisfied because he believed that the unit was not heating or cooling properly and that his electricity bills were too high. Respondent returned to Mr. Wilensky's home on several occasions to do additional work on the unit, such as changing thermostats, in an attempt to satisfy Mr. Wilensky. Wilensky was not satisfied with the additional work performed by Respondent and their previously good relationship deteriorated rapidly. Wilensky called Florida Power & Light Company to complain about the high electric bills and an inspector went out to his home. The inspector informed Wilensky that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was not done properly. On March 4, 1985, at the request of Mr. Wilensky, Benny Biscotti, an electrical building official for the City of North Miami Beach, performed an inspection at the Wilensky residence. In his inspection, Biscotti confirmed that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was hooked up "ahead of the main." The wiring in Wilensky's home was corrected by AVI/AMEX Electric Company on January 16, 1986. The City of North Miami Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code (SFBC). The SFBC required that a mechanical permit be obtained for the installation of the air conditioning/heating unit. The SFBC did not require an electrical permit in this instance because there was no showing that the installation of the unit required new permanent wiring or an alteration or change to the existing electrical system. The evidence did not establish that electrical upgrading (an increase in capacity for voltage and amperage) was required to accommodate the new air conditioning/heating unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX 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. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not supported by the weight of credible testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Mr. Wilensky's testimony that he saw Respondent connect the switch to the fuse box is unpersuasive, particularly in view of the fact that he did not observe all of the work performed by Respondent, his admitted lack of knowledge of air conditioning and electrical matters and his intense negative feelings regarding Respondent resulting from this entire incident. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Biscotti's testimony that the wiring was "recent" was based on the history of the work related to him by Mr. Wilensky. Although Biscotti testified that it looked as if "recent work" had been done, the admitted that his opinion was primarily based on Wilensky's statement to him that Respondent had installed new wiring. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusion of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (The Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order is written in the form of Conclusions of Law only and includes no specific findings of fact upon which a ruling can be made.) COPIES FURNISHED: Gus Vincent Soto, Esq Joe Sole, Esq. Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Edward Bringham, Esq. Fred Seely 25 West Flagler Street Executive Director City National Bank Bldg. Department of Professional Suite 933 Regulation Miami, FL 33130 P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's bid was properly rejected as being nonresponsive.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, 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 31st day of October, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, in violation of Section 489.11 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceitful or untrue representations, in violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of exceeding the scope of his state registered mechanical contractor's license, in violation of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts were found: Respondent, Arwood Hollins, in 1986 held a mechanical contractor's license (RM0016479) with the State of Florida. Respondent owned a 50% interest in All Florida Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, Heating and Ventilation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "All Florida"), a Florida corporation. The Respondent has resided in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida for approximately 15 years. The main offices of All Florida are located in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida, with a branch office in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. In 1986 the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for All Florida. Pursuant to the Respondent's mechanical contractor's license with the State of Florida, he is required to comply with all local license requirements. Respondent has never held nor applied for a license in Seminole County to practice mechanical contracting. The Respondent holds a certificate of competency in Lake and Orange Counties, and inactive certificates for Dade and Sumter Counties, but does not hold a certificate in Seminole County. In 1986 All Florida advertised in the Donnelly Directory for United Telephone (Exhibit 2) in the Central Florida area. Said ad depicts All Florida as being a repair specialist. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, resides at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. All work performed by All Florida on the Complainant's air conditioning system was performed at the Rockingham Court address in Seminole County, Florida. Respondent testified that although he has lived in Central Florida for 15 years, he is unfamiliar with Seminole County and practices only in Lake and Orange Counties. Seminole County has enacted an ordinance (Number 83-15) which requires that before any person can be issued a license to practice mechanical contracting in Seminole County, they must meet certain requirements. Between January 28, 1986 and August 3, 1986, Robert Hollins, the son of Respondent and an employee of All Florida, traveled to the Complainant's house at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida on at least six (6) occasions to perform inspections and/or repairs on the Complainant's air conditioning and heating equipment. Five (5) of the visits, between March 17, 1986 and August 3, 1986, involved problems with the cooling of the air conditioning system. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, contacted All Florida after she found the company in a Yellow Page and in the Donnelly Directory phone book in late January, 1986 regarding problems with her heating system. Robert Hollins travel led to Mrs. Chamberlin's house at 105 Rockingham Court in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida and made repairs to a circuit breaker. Mrs. Chamberlin again contacted All Florida on or about March 17, 1986 due to a problem with her air conditioning unit. Mrs. Chamberlin spoke with Robert Hollins and gave him directions to her house. Mr. Hollins did not ask if she resided in Seminole County. Robert Hollins advised Mrs. Chamberlin that there was an extensive freon leak in her air conditioning unit and that her ECU unit on the air conditioner would need to be disconnected to insure that all the leaks would be stopped. Thereafter, Robert Hollins assured Mrs. Chamberlin that all of the leaks had been taken care of. She was charged $245.45 for the visit for labor and materials, which she paid. Approximately two months later, on or about May 19, 1986, Janis Chamberlin heard noises from the air conditioning unit. Robert Hollis was called and he traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house and charged her a total of $28.00 for the visit and the air conditioning unit stopped making noises. Approximately two months later, the same air conditioning unit was failing to cool properly and Mrs. Chamberlin again called All Florida. Robert Hollis traveled to the Chamberlin residence and advised that the condenser fan motor had quit working and needed to be replaced. Mrs. Chamberlin authorized the work and thereafter Robert Hollins assured her that he had replaced the condenser fan motor with a new one. Mrs. Chamberlin was charged a total of $248.50 for the new fan motor, other materials and labor. On August 3, 1986, Mrs. Chamberlin noticed a loud screeching noise coming from the air conditioning unit. She called Robert Hollins who arrived at Mrs. Chamberlin's house on the same day. He left the Chamberlin residence before telling Mrs. Chamberlin what was wrong with the unit. Mrs. Chamberlin noticed that the noise she had heard earlier had stopped temporarily. By approximately 9:00 p.m. on the same day, the noise returned and she noticed that there was a decrease in the cooling of the unit. By the following morning, the air conditioning unit was not working. Mrs. Janis Chamberlin contacted All Florida on August 4, 1989. Mrs. Chamberlin advised Robert Hollins that if he would not work on the unit that day, she would have to get someone else to do the job and to call her by 5:00 pm. that day to let her know. Robert Hollins did not call or come to her home by 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Chamberlin called Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. to repair her air conditioning unit. William Pierce, an employee of Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. in 1986, serviced the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence on August 5, 1986. Mr. Pierce inspected the unit and found that the crank shaft was wrung off inside the compressor. There was a refrigerant leak and oil was visible all over the front of the condenser coil. Also, the fan motor was running backwards. Mr. Pierce's inspection of the condenser fan motor indicated rust around the shaft and fan hub. According to Mr. Pierce, if a fan motor is put on backwards, or rotates in the wrong direction, this would cause the head and back pressure to go up and could eventually internally overload the compressor. It did not do so in this instance, since the crankshaft was wrung off and the compressor froze up. Janis Chamberlin took pictures of the air conditioning unit (Composite Exhibit 10). These photographs were taken after William Pierce had pulled apart the air conditioning unit in preparation for installation of a new unit. The fan motor appears to show rust. The entire air conditioning unit in question was replaced by Four Seasons. Janis Chamberlin requested in writing that All Florida refund her the money paid to All Florida for repairs made to the air conditioning unit in the total amount of $516.95. The letter was dated August 12, 1986 and requested the refund by August 18, 1986. All Florida did not refund the monies. The Respondent never traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house to inspect the air conditioner in question or discuss with Mrs. Chamberlin the problems with the air conditioning unit. Robert H. Adams was accepted as an expert witness in the area of service of residential units in air conditioning and the responsibilities of a qualifying agent. Robert H. Adams is a certified residential contractor and he held a City of Jacksonville Master Heating and Air Conditioning license since approximately 1968. A qualifying agent is responsible for the conduct and supervision of the business, the supervision of it and the actions of its employees. The test for a freon leak in a residential unit is relatively simple. This includes looking for oil around any of the fittings, tubes and condensers. It normally takes only one service call to repair leaks. However, it is not unusual for a service technician to make more than one service call in order to locate all of the leaks. If a leak cannot be repaired, the serviceman should tell the client that it is not repairable. Unless a fan motor was exposed to chemicals or salt water, there would be no reason in a three week time span as to why it would rust. If an employee of a qualifying agent told a customer he was installing a new motor which turned out to be untrue, this would be the equivalent of deceit and fraud. Answering complaints from a customer is a distinct responsibility of a qualifying agent. If the fan motor installed in an air conditioning unit similar to the one installed at the Chamberlin residence has an improper rotation, this would affect the air conditioning unit. This would include causing an increase in pressures, inadequate cooling and could damage the compressor. During the period between March and July, 1986 and following three service calls, it is incompetence to fail to find freon and oil leaks. The Respondent received a minimum of three phone calls from his son, Robert Hollins, on July 15, 1986 concerning repairs needed to Mrs. Chamberlin's air conditioning unit. The Respondent spoke with his son, Robert Hollins, on May 19, 1986 concerning the service call at the Chamberlin residence. Robert Hollins in 1986 did not have a license to practice mechanical engineering in Seminole County, Florida and did not hold any license with the State of Florida other than a driver's license. In 1986, Robert Hollins resided in Leesburg, Florida, but was the sole employee at All Florida's branch office in Orlando, Florida. Although Robert Hollins would drive through Seminole County to and from work each day, he stated he was not familiar with Seminole County. Respondent testified that he had instructed his son to use a map in order to avoid performing any work in Seminole County, Florida. Robert Hollins did not examine a map to verify if the Chamberlin residence was in Seminole County, nor did he ask Mrs. Chamberlin which county she resided in. Every time Robert Hollins went to the Chamberlin residence for a service call, he checked in with the Respondent. On July 15, 1986, Hollins inspected the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence and advised Mrs. Chamberlin she needed a new fan motor. Robert Hollins first obtains approval from Respondent before any purchase of equipment or machinery is made. On July 15, 1986, he obtained permission to purchase a new fan motor for the Chamberlin air conditioning unit. That same day Robert Hollins installed a new fan motor at the Chamberlin residence. The fan motor Hollis installed on July 15, 1986 had a 90 day warranty. All Florida warrants its work under the manufacturer's warranty. Subsequently, Chamberlin advised Hollins that the air conditioning unit was not working. He replied that if she had any problems with the unit he would rather not come out and work on it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, violating Sections 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes and that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent be found not guilty of making misleading, deceitful, or untrue representations. Respondent be found guilty of incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, which caused monetary harm to the licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Respondent be found guilty of contracting in a county without a local license, in violation of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent be reprimanded. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1611 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The following Findings of Fact are Accepted: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4(in part) ,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15(in part), 16,17, (in part),18,19,20,21,24,25,26,(in part),27,28,29,30(in part),31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39(in substance),40 The following Findings of Fact are Rejected: Paragraphs 22 and 23 - uncorroborated hearsay Pargraph 15(in part) - not relevant Paragraph 17(in part) - witness cannot give expert opinion testimony, since he was not qualified to testify as an expert COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Sealy Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John E. Jordan, Esquire Wool folk, Estes and Keough, P.A. 131 Park Lake Street Post Office Drawer 3751 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard A. Howard, Esquire Brownlee and Jacobs, P.A. Post Office Box 1448 Tavares, Florida 32778
