Findings Of Fact A draftsman named Ward approached respondent with plans which Mr. Ward told respondent he had been given by one W. J. "Jack" Harlan. Mr. Ward also told respondent that Mr. Harlan had said that the plans were for a standard steel "pre-engineered" Mitchel Building, which Mr. Harlan proposed to construct for D & D Machine Specialties, Inc. in Fort Myers, as an annex to an existing building. Respondent was given to understand by Mr. Ward that Mr. Harlan wanted respondent "to prepare a plot plan and foundation plan, [and a plan for an] electrical riser and . . . [to] copy . . . some details furnished by" Mr. Harlan. Respondent agreed to undertake the project. In accordance with respondent's instructions, Mr. Ward drafted four sheets of drawings. Respondent "checked [the drawings] . . . , made some minor changes and corrections and . . . signed them." (T65) These drawings came in as petitioner's exhibit No. l. The first of the four sheets contains a schematic riser diagram, an electrical floor plan and a plot plan. On this sheet is written "PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING BY MITCHEL." The second sheet contains a foundation plan and detailed drawings of columns. On the second sheet is written "SPECIFICATIONS COPIED FROM ENGR. DATA BOOK, AS PUBLISHED BY MITCHEL METAL BUILDINGS, AS APPROVED BY STEEL JOIST INSTITUTE." The third sheet contains floor plans and drawings of the north, east, south and west elevations of the proposed structure. The fourth sheet contains a roof framing plan, a stress diagram, and wall and other structural details. On this sheet is written "SPECIFICATIONS COPIED FROM COMPUTER [sic] PRINT OUT, & ENGR. DATA BOOK, BY MITCHEL STEEL BUILDINGS, AS APPROVED BY STEEL JOIST INSTITUTE." Respondent's seal and signature appear on each of the four sheets. The first sheet is dated February 23, 1977. Each of the other sheets is dated February 14, 1977. Mr. Harlan submitted all four sheets of petitioner's exhibit No. 1 to Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department as part of his application for a building permit. Mr. Alfred J. Heinman, Director of Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department, and others in the Building and Zoning Department who reviewed the drawings, had reservations about the stability and strength of rails proposed along either side of the planned structure to bear the weight of a movable overhead crane. Accordingly, the Building and Zoning Department denied Mr. Harlan's application for a building permit. Mr. Harlan never told respondent that his permit application had been denied. Instead, he engaged Jorge Zorilla, a professional civil engineer whose specialty is structural design engineering, to remedy the deficiencies in the drawings respondent had done. In examining petitioner's exhibit No. 1, Mr. Zorilla concluded that, if the building had been constructed in accordance with respondent's drawings, trying to lift with the overhead crane in an eccentric position, or even a strong wind, could have caused its collapse. Specifically, the connections between roof members and columns proposed in petitioner's exhibit No. 1 were not strong enough to resist lateral forces on the building; there was inadequate provision for the support of the overhead crane; and there was no bracing system between the columns to resist winds in an easterly or westerly direction. In Mr. Zorilla's opinion, respondent gave no consideration to forces that would have been exerted on the structure by the wind and also failed to consider the consequences of an eccentric crane load. As originally drawn by respondent, the plans did not meet the requirements of the Southern Building Code. Before redrawing sheet four of petitioners exhibit No. 1, Mr. Zorilla asked Mr. Harlan for any information he had "from the Mitchell Steel Building people." (T18) Mr. Harlan answered that he had none; that the proposed building was not a standard model; and that he had collected building materials from various sources. As reflected by petitioner's exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Zorilla made several changes in sheet four of petitioner's exhibit No. 1, including doubling the number of joists in the area where the crane load would exist; increasing from 4" to 12" the height of plates welded to columns to support the crane girders; specifying that 6" x 1/4" plates be welded to the bottoms of the joists near the points of connection with columns; modifying plans for the corner columns; specifying that sway bars be included in two bays on both of the longer walls; and specifying larger angles for bridging. Mr. Ward, whom Mr. Harlan had engaged for the purpose, drafted the changes specified by Mr. Zorilla. When Mr. Zorilla saw Mr. Ward's first draft, he asked him to make certain changes. After Mr. Ward had accomplished the changes, Mr. Zorilla signed and sealed the revised sheet four. On the basis of the plans as revised, Fort Myers' Building and Zoning Department granted Mr. Harlan's application for a building permit. Respondent testified that he was not registered as a structural engineer, "that it was a little over . . [his] head," (T56) and that he had never intended that the plans he signed and sealed should be used by themselves. Respondent testified without contradiction that it was customary, in the case of "pre-engineered" buildings, for the structural engineering to be done by one engineer, while other engineers prepared electrical, air conditioning and other plans for the same structure. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjuction with the statement required by Stuckey' s of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspended respondent's certificate of registration for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Petitioner did present evidence "as to its allegation" in the first specification of the administrative complaint. Taken as a whole, the evidence did establish that respondent knew or should have known that he had taken on a structural engineering task. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have generally been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not establish whether or not the plans drawn at respondent's direction resembled "a Mitchell pre-engineer[ed] building"; and the plates specified by Mr. Zorilla were six inches by one quarter inch. COPIES FURNISHED: Ford L. Thompson, Esquire Suite 701, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen W. Buckley, Esquire Corner Main and Broadway Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= IN THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, a State agency, Complainant, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-2224 CLARENCE L. KIMBALL, Registrant. /
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a registered sheet metal contractor in the State of Florida. In fact, Respondent qualified in aluminum fabrication and erection. He holds license number RS 0025757. From 1984 through September, 1986, Respondent owned and operated Robinsons Aluminum Products, Inc. The company, which was located in Tampa, sold and erected aluminum screen enclosures. Respondent was the qualifying agent for the company. On August 19, 1986, Margaret Haden entered into a contract with Robinsons Aluminum Products, Inc., signed by Respondent as representative, for the construction of a screen room and slab, roof, and door for the room. The total contract price was $1575. Mrs. Haden paid a $550 deposit by check dated August 21, 1986, and the remainder was due on completion. Shortly after entering into the contract, Respondent prepared drawings and sketches for the job. He then submitted these drawings and sketches to the homeowners' association, whose approval was required before Respondent could obtain a building permit or begin the work. The homeowners' association did not immediately respond to the request for approval. After seven to ten days, Mrs. Haden called Respondent to find out why work had not begun. Respondent called the homeowners' association and learned that they were changing offices and everything was in disarray. Two to three weeks after the date of the contract, Respondent received verbal approval from the homeowners' association, but was unable to get written approval. At about this time, Mrs. Haden fired him, hired a new contractor, and demanded her $550 back. Respondent refused to return the deposit.
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. 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 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0573 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 7-9. Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Benito Tortora 2516 Gresham Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 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 3299-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered specialty contractor having been issued license number RX0032228, which he holds in the name of Larry T. Huston, Huston Awning Co. On May 29, 1980, Frank Cornelius, on behalf of Hurst Awning Aluminum Company, Inc., went to the mobile home of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Olzak located in Broward County, Florida, where he met with Mrs. Olzak. By the conclusion of that meeting, Cornelius and Mrs. Olzak had entered into two separate contracts whereby Hurst was to construct a screened enclosure at her mobile home. Both contracts were fully executed and were for the same work, although they varied in price by almost $2,000. No credible explanation was offered as to why Mrs. Olzak entered into two separate contracts. Approximately a month later, three men arrived at the Olzaks' mobile home with materials bearing the Hurst logo in a truck bearing the Hurst name. They returned a day or two later and started the construction work contracted for by Mrs. Olzak. At the beginning of July 1980, when the work was almost completed, an inspector for the Broward County Building Department came to the job site and stopped the work for the reason that no permit had been obtained from Broward County. Shortly thereafter, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Olzak and explained that he had been requested by Frank Cornelius at Hurst to do the necessary engineering work for them. He requested permission to come to the Olzaks' mobile home to take the measurements necessary to prepare engineered sealed plans for the job. That evening, Respondent visited the Olzak job site and took the measurements necessary to prepare the plans in order to comply with Broward County requirements. While there, he only spoke with Mr. Olzak. He told Olzak that he had his own company, Huston Awning Company, and that he was working with Hurst so that a building permit could be obtained. He advised Olzak where he could be reached at Huston Awning Company in Broward County. Respondent filed a building permit application with the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division for the Olzak job. He made application in the name of his company, Huston Awning Company, and signed the application as the contractor. A building permit was issued. After issuance of the permit, two men came to the Olzaks' mobile home in a truck bearing no company name. They came to continue or complete the Olzak construction. Mrs. Olzak decided she did not like them and issued instructions that they would not be permitted to work on the project. No evidence was presented as to whether those men were employed by Hurst or by Huston. Thereafter, Mrs. Olzak refused to allow any further work to be done in completion of the contract. No final inspection has ever been made, since Mrs. Olzak has also denied access to the project to the inspector from Broward County. At no time has Respondent qualified Hurst Awning Aluminum Company, Inc., although no competent evidence was introduced to show that Respondent was employed by Hurst or had an interest in Hurst which might enable him to qualify that company. At the formal hearing, Mr. Olzak admitted Respondent told him he was with Huston Awning Company in Broward County, and Mrs. Olzak admitted Respondent told her he purchases all of the awnings he uses in his business from Hurst Awning Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 3rd day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Kristin Building, Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Justin E. Beals, Esquire Forte Plaza, Suite 808 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether respondent violated various provisions of Section 24(2) Chapter 75- 489, Laws of Florida, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 20, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, James Rosati Jr., Respondent, was a certified residential building contractor and held license No. C-1135 from the PCCLB. He was the qualifying contractor for Pinnacle Home Improvements, Inc. Pinnacle Home Improvements, Inc. entered into a contract with Victoria Lawson to replace the aluminum roof on the back porch with a new roof, put an 8 foot divider wall in the back room, put soffit and facia around the overhang of the house, replace any bad wood found, replace a burglar bar with screen at front door, and replace a cracked beam and paint; all for a price of $4900. A building permit was obtained to install 150 linear feet of facia and soffit aluminum PLC coated on August 3, 1989 (Ex. 6) showing estimated cost of work of $1000. This permit did not cover replacing the roof or doing other roofing work for which Respondent was not licensed. When the work was completed Ms. Lawson paid the full contract price of $4900 to Pinnacle Builders. Shortly thereafter the roof began to leak and Lawson complained to Pinnacle who sent someone out to stop the leak by putting a coating of fiberglass over the plywood originally placed over the existing aluminum roof. When the roof continued to leak and satisfaction was not forthcoming from Pinnacle, Lawson requested a qualified roofer give her an estimate of the cost to replace the roof. Charles Dallier, a licensed roofer, inspected the roof and found that Pinnacle had nailed a sheet of painted plywood over the aluminum roof piercing the aluminum in the process. When Dallier returned a second time he found 90 pound roll roofing had been added to the roof. Dallier gave Lawson an estimated price of $850 to remove the aluminum roof and replace. The cost for a permit pulled for the work to be done is based upon the value of the work. Accordingly, the permit pulled that failed to include all of the work which Pinnacle had contracted to do cost Pinnacle considerably less than would have a permit showing the contract price of $4900. Respondent contends that he was always willing to replace the roof but the price quoted by Dallier was too high. Nevertheless, Pinnacle finally presented a check for $850 to do the roof properly but before the work started the check was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Pinnacle filed for bankruptcy.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida at all material times. He held license number CG-C028693. As of May 20, 1988, this license was delinquent for nonrenewal and had been since June, 1987. At all material times while licensed as a certified general contractor, Respondent served as the qualifying agent for Quigley Homes, Inc., which is located in Palm Bay, Florida. In March, 1985, Ronald and Rita McCarty contacted Respondent after seeing a model house that he had constructed in the area. After negotiations, in May, 1985, Respondent, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc., entered into a contract with Mr. McCarty for the construction of a house at a price of $89,900. The contract included several pages of specifications and stated that completion was due within four months of commencement. The parties agreed to a set of blueprints shortly after the contract was executed and thereby satisfied the only contingency to the contract. Shortly thereafter, Respondent began preliminary work, such as ordering windows, site clearing and preparation, and obtaining necessary permits. In October, 1985, Mr. McCarty lost his job and his mortgage application was rejected. Respondent therefore ceased working on the house. At the time, the McCartys had paid Respondent the sum of $4495, which had been spent on start-up expenses. In July, 1986, Respondent resumed construction, under the same contract, shortly after being told that Mr. McCarty had applied for another mortgage after obtaining a new job in January, 1986. In August, 1986, a subcontractor poured the concrete slab for the house. The day prior to the pour, Mr. McCarty discovered that certain plumbing, which had to be in place before the pour, was missing. Unable to reach Respondent, Mr. McCarty himself informed the plumber of the omission. The plumber installed the necessary plumbing before the pour. A day or two prior to the pour, Carrol Smoot, Building Inspector for the Town of Indialantic, had inspected the form and reminded the subcontractor in charge of the pour that J- bolts needed to be added before the pour. J-bolts are anchoring devices around which the concrete is poured. Once the concrete is set, the wall plates are placed under the hook of the J- bolt in order to secure the house to the slab. Notwithstanding Mr. Smoot's reminder, the pour proceeded without the J- bolts in place. The pour had several other problems. A portion of the concrete garage floor was not square because the form had been off by about 4" at the time of the pour. The rear porch floor sloped too steeply toward the house. The slope of the front porch was also too steep. There were various "bird baths" or depressions in the slab. On August 27, 1986, Respondent and the McCartys met with Mr. Smoot at the work site. Following the meeting, Mr. Smoot sent a letter to Respondent dated August 29, 1986, in which Mr. Smoot required Respondent to take certain corrective action. The letter required two probe tests of the concrete in place, the installation of stud wall anchor bolts, the correction of the out-of- square corner, the topping of low spots in the slab with Ardex, and the repair or replacement of the incorrectly sloped rear porch. In September, 1986, two portions of the slab passed by considerable margins separate probe tests designed to test the strength of the concrete. Shortly after the August 27 meeting, Respondent suggested to Mr. Smoot that Hilti nails, rather than anchor bolts, be used to secure the wall plates to the slab. Hilti nails are an acceptable, but less desirable, alternative to J- bolts. However, after the slab is poured, it is much easier to install Hilti nails than J-bolts. Both Mr. Smoot and the McCartys agreed to Respondent's proposal. At the same time, the excess slab at the unsquare corner was cut off and, pursuant to Mr. Smoot's orders, additional concrete was poured and attached to the original slab by means of stainless steel bolts. Respondent offered to apply Ardex to the rear porch in order to level it and improve the concrete's rough finish, which had been caused by rain during the pour. Ardex is a topping material applied to concrete in order to level the surface. Respondent also offered to apply a coat of Kool Deck, such as that found around swimming pools, over the Ardex. The McCartys rejected the Kool Deck, but agreed to the Ardex. When terminated, as discussed below, Respondent had not applied the Ardex; however, he was postponing the work so that the finish would not be marred by later construction work. Respondent removed and replaced the front porch slab. He ground the remaining slab in order to alleviate the unevenness. It is unclear whether Respondent also applied Ardex to other portions of the slab in order to eliminate the depressions. Depressions in slabs are not uncommon and grinding and topping materials are often used to level uneven slabs. Following most if not all of the concrete corrective work, a subcontractor began the framing job. At about this time, shortly after the slab grinding was completed, C. C. Holbrook replaced Respondent as supervisor of the job for Quigley Homes, Inc. Mr. Holbrook was a certified general contractor with 30 years' experience. At the time, Respondent had built only 8- 10 houses and was considerably less experienced than Mr. Holbrook. When Mr. Smoot was called to inspect the framing, he found that the Hilti nails had been driven through the wall plate improperly. Instead of having been staggered on either side of the centerline of the wood plate, each nail had been driven into the center so as to split the plate in places. This problem was later corrected by driving more Hilti nails on either side of the centerline. Similar nailing problems occurred with the roof sheathing and fiberboard. Mr. Smoot required renailing of these items and, when this was done, approved the work. When the framing was about half complete, Mr. McCarty threw the framing subcontractor off the job due to Mr. McCarty's dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship. In specific, he objected to the fact that one or more walls appeared out of plumb. At about the same time, which was late November or early December, 1986, the McCartys announced that they would no longer accept Hilti nails, even though they had already been installed. On December 22, 1986, Mr. Holbrook, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc. wrote a letter to the McCartys in which he stated that the company could not proceed with the construction without written approval from the McCartys of the Hilti nails. Quigley Homes, Inc. discontinued working on the job at about that time. In mid-January, 1987, Respondent's father, who is a certified general contractor with nearly 40 years' experience, met with the McCartys to try to resolve the differences between the parties. Respondent's father, David J. Quigley, Sr., has built over 20,000 residential units. Although unaffiliated with Quigley Homes, Inc., Mr. Quigley, Sr. had lent Mr. Holbrook to his son's company during a relatively inactive period before Mr. Holbrook was needed for a large residential development in which Mr. Quigley, Sr. was involved. At the meeting, Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that all problems would be resolved. Mr. McCarty was unappeased, which led Mr. Quigley, Sr. to ask if Mr. McCarty preferred to have someone else finish the house. Mr. McCarty responded affirmatively. Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that Mr. McCarty should inform Mr. Holbrook in writing of the existing problems so that Quigley Homes, Inc. could take care of them. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. McCarty called Mr. Holbrook to arrange a meeting to discuss the problems. Mr. Holbrook said that Mr. McCarty should mail him a written list instead. The McCartys never sent such a writing to Mr. Holbrook or Quigley Homes, Inc. A final exchange of correspondence took place between the McCartys' attorneys, whose letter was dated January 28, 1987., and Quigley Homes, Inc., whose letter was dated February 5, 1987. In its letter, Quigley Homes, Inc. restated its willingness to finish the job or leave the job and repair the items mentioned in the letter. At the time of the termination of Quigley Homes, Inc. from the McCarty job, Mr. Smoot had approved all stages of construction requiring inspection up to that time. However, numerous deficiencies in workmanship existed for which Respondent was responsible. Nearly all of these items were of a type that would have been corrected as construction proceeded on the house. These items included the uneven rear porch floor to which Respondent had offered to apply Ardex and Kool Deck, numerous window frames at different heights, two out-of- plumb walls, one or two incorrectly sized door openings, and a wavy roof ridge line caused largely by a few trusses that had been unevenly spaced. The repairs necessary to fix these items were minor. The wavy roof ridge line is not unusual, and the out-of-plumb walls had not yet been permanently attached. Additional work was required to correct Respondent's deviation from the plans in using screening rather than aluminum soffits. Also, the tilt of one exterior wall prevented the application of one row of bricks near ground level, although the absence of these bricks is not readily apparent. Two deficiencies were more significant. First, the garage floor was removed and replaced. The floor had suffered cracking and shrinkage. Although this portion of the slab had not been tested for strength, two other portions of the monolithic pour had passed strength tests. Petitioner failed to prove that the garage floor was structurally unsound or even seriously uneven. Appearance was the primary reason for the removal of the floor. Second, the contractor who completed the job had to convert the master bedroom ceiling from a cathedral ceiling to a conventional ceiling due to problems with the truss design. However, the first truss company to which Respondent took the McCartys' plans refused to do the work, claiming that the design was impossible. The problem as to the ceiling was due to an error in planning for which Respondent was not responsible. None of the deficiencies described above, except for the omission of the J-bolts, affected the structural integrity of the house. Once the Hilti nails were properly installed, no structural deficiencies remained. Petitioner's independent expert witness and the second contractor whom Petitioner called, declined to testify that the work was grossly negligent. There is no evidence that the McCartys demanded correction of any of the defects described in Paragraphs 25-28. There is evidence that Quigley Homes, Inc. was ready, willing, and able to correct such problems. Under the circumstances, the overall work, given the nature of the deficiencies, was not grossly negligent or incompetent. Like the work itself, the supervision was sloppy at times but was not grossly negligent or incompetent. According to Mr. Smoot's testimony, Respondent's absence during the inspections and portions of the pour is typical among residential general contractors.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 14th day of September, 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 14th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Adopted. 6. Adopted except that construction recommenced in July, 1986, and Mr. McCarty discovered that the plumbing was not in place on the day prior to the pour. 7 and 9. Adopted. 8. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Respondent's use of Hilti nails adopted. Remainder rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that the opening for a door in the garage was cut too small. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that certain trusses were not evenly spaced. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. The majority of the repairs and replacement done by Joyal were unnecessary. Those repairs that were necessary would have been done at no expense to the McCartys by Quigley Homes, Inc. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's personal involvement was not needed or required when Mr. Holbrook began to supervise the project. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 4 and 6. Adopted in substance. 5. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and unsupported by the evidence, except that it rained during the pour, the slab had bird baths, the J-bolts were not installed, a meeting took place among the McCartys, Respondent, and Mr. Smoot, Respondent subsequently suggested the use of Hilti nails, and the parties agreed upon the use of Hilti nails and other corrective measures. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony, except that the Hilti nails were, after a reinspection approved by Mr. Smoot. Rejected as subordinate. Findings concerning the source of delays are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Neither Petitioner or Respondent produced sufficient proof to explain the source of delays apart from the substantial delay caused by the McCartys' inability to perform under the contract. Because the burden of proof on this issue is upon Petitioner, the insufficiency of the evidence means that Respondent cannot be found guilty of untimely performance. The employment of Mr. Holbrook and his 30 years' experience are adopted. Adopted. 12-14. Rejected as subordinate. 15. Adopted. 16-17 and 21. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 10 above. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected as legal conclusion. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire Bruce D. Lamb Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Elting L. Storms, Esquire Storms, Krasny, Normile & Dettmer Fred Seely 780 South Apollo Boulevard Executive Director Post Office Box 1376 Construction Industry Melbourne, Florida 32902-1376 Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
