Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether or not on or about May 25, 1977, the Respondent licensed under the beverage laws and/its agent, servant, or employee, employed by salary or on a contractual basis to entertain, perform or work upon the licensed premises, to wit: Lisa Palov Clark, aka Di Di Bang Bang, did beg or solicit a customer or patron, to wit; Deputy Ernest Weaver, on the Respondent's licensed premises, to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee or entertainer, contrary to Section 562.131(1) F.S. There was noticed for hearing a second count to the Notice to Show Cause which was not heard due to the motion to withdraw the count, made by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number One, doing business as Golden Dolphin, is the holder of license number 15-229, Series 2-COP, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is for operation at a location at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida. The operative period of the license is from October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. A copy of the license may be found as part of Petitioner's composite exhibit #1 admitted into evidence. On May 25, 1977, Lisa Palov Clark, also known as Di Di Bang Bang, was actively employed on the licensed premises, by the licensee. Ms. Clark's employment was as an entertainer, specifically a dancer. On the subject evening of May 25, 1977, Officer Ernest Weaver of the Brevard County, Florida Sheriff's Office, and Beverage Officer Eugene P. Fogle, entered the licensed premises around 9:00 p.m. and took seats in separate locations. They observed the floor shows being presented on the licensed premises, which shows were nude dancers and striptease. One of the dancers was Lisa Palov Clark. After completing her dance, Ms. Clark went to the dressing- room area of the licensed premises and then returned to the area occupied by the patrons. When she returned, she approached the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. She approached him without being requested by Officer Weaver either orally or by gesture. When she arrived at the table, she made the comment to Officer Weaver either to the effect "Can I have a drink?" or "Won't you let me order something?". Officer Weaver in his testimony at the hearing was uncertain of the exact statement made by Ms. Clark. Subsequent to the aforementioned comment, in whatever form it took, Ms. Clark stated that she felt hot and that her neck was wet. These comments were directed to Officer Weaver. During the course of this conversation, a waitress came and stood by the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. The waitress did not participate in the conversation between Ms. Clark and Officer Weaver. Officer Weaver, in response to Ms. Clark's comments, asked what she would like to drink, and Ms. Clark indicated that she would like champagne, one drink of which costs $2.75 and a pony bottle cost $6.00. The waitress then stated, "What will it be?" and Officer Weaver said, "Bring one of the $6.00 bottles." The waitress brought a bottle and at least one glass. The bottle was placed on the floor between Officer Weaver and Ms. Clark. The glass was positioned in the place at which Ms. Clark was seated and a drink was poured for her. Officer Weaver paid $6.00 plus a tip to the waitress. (There was some discussion about a possible second bottle which was purchased, but the recollection of witnesses was not sufficient to establish the existence of such a second bottle of champagne.) There was no testimony about the knowledge of the activities between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark, and the waitress, from the point of view of any of the officers, directors, or owners of the licensed premises. Moreover, it was not established that any manager in charge of the licensed premises observed the interchange between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark and the waitress. The facts as established, constitute a sufficient basis to show that the employee of the licensee, to wit, Lisa Palov Clark, employed on the licensed premises to entertain, perform or work, did beg or solicit a patron or customer on the licensed premises to purchase a beverage in violation of Section 562.131, F.S. However, even though the employee violated this law, the licensee was not culpable based upon any willful intent, negligence or lack of due diligence. See Trader Jon Inc. vs. State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (1st DCA 1960). Additionally, the testimony indicated that the licensee in the person of Milton Seidman had instructed the employee Ms. Clark not to solicit drinks. Finally, to penalize the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S., there must be a showing of more than an isolated incident as is the case here. See Taylor v. State Beverage Department, 194 So.2d 321 (2d DCA, 1967).
Recommendation It is recommended that the licensee, Golden Dolphin Number One, d/b/a Golden Dolphin, operating under licensee number 15-229, to do business at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida, be relieved of the necessity to make further answer to the Notice to Show Cause which is the subject of this hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Lawrence M. Litus, Esquire 231 East New Haven Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for permitting his general contractor's license to be used by another person to construct a swimming pool, thereby conspiring with an unlicensed person to avoid statutory licensure requirements, and by failing to oversee the quality of the work performed by that person under Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible to prosecute administrative complaints under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules implementing those statutes. At all times material to the complaint, Raymond Hurley was licensed as a certified general contractor, holding Florida license CGC 000773 and served as the qualifying agent for Capital Resources and Development, Inc. Kenneth R. and Lucille M. Clopper, of Fort Pierce, Florida, entered into a contract with Fred Humberstone, doing business as Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, Inc., on September 21, 1987, for the construction of a pool and screened enclosure at the Clopper's home. The contract price was $15,500. Mr. Humberstone has never been a qualified contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida. Mr. Hurley became authorized to do business as a contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida, on September 29, 1987, when he provided a copy of his state certified general contractor's license, a certificate of insurance for worker's compensation and general liability property damage insurance to St. Lucie County. St. Lucie County Permit No. 44574 was issued to Capital Resources and Development, Inc., on October 9, 1987. The permit application had been dated September 24, 1987. The application bore Mr. Hurley's contractor license number. In the space for the name of the company, the application had originally been written in the name of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, of Stuart, Florida. The name of the applicant had been scratched through, and the name of Capital Resources and Development, Inc., was written over it. The application bears a handwritten signature which reads Raymond S. Hurley, but it is not his signature. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application, or authorize anyone to sign it for him. Mr. Hurley knew Mr. Humberstone, the owner of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. Humberstone had difficulty with his corporation because his qualifying contractor had left, and Humberstone owned approximately $150,000 worth of equipment which he could not use without a qualifying contractor. Humberstone made a proposal to Hurley to become the qualifying contractor for Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. It was about this time that Mr. Hurley first qualified to engage in the business of contracting in St. Lucie County. Mr. Humberstone must have pulled the permit for the Clopper jor, using Mr. Hurley's licensure in St. Lucie County. This is likely because at first, the line for the permit applicant had been filled in with the name of Humberstone's business, Southern Fiberglass Pools by the Treasure Coast. Mr. Hurley had become licensed in St. Lucie County because he was contemplating going into business with Mr. Humberstone. What cannot be determined from the evidence in the record is whether Mr. Hurley had agreed with Mr. Humberstone to make his licensure available to Mr. Humberstone so Humberstone could continue in the pool contracting business in St. Lucie County. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application for the permit at the Clopper's home. He never went to the Clopper's home to see the work or to meet the Cloppers. Had he gone into partnership with Humberstone he would likely have participated, to some extent, in the work. On this matter, the Department's proof is insufficient. After the construction at the Clopper home began, there were a number of delays in completion of the pool, and the contractor failed to install stress relief for the pool deck which resulted in cracking of the pool deck. The pool itself had three leaks. The problems with the pool remained unresolved and the Clopper's finally settled with Mr. Humberstone for payment for $1,020 in exchange for providing Mr. Humberstone with the release of liability. Ultimately, the Cloppers spend $1,659 to repair the problems created by Mr. Humberstone's inadequate work. Mr. Hurley was never at the job site, and the Cloppers never knew anything about him until after their pool had been completed; all of their dealings had been with Humberstone.
Recommendation It is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Raymond Hurley be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of January 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4233 Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner: 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Hurley, although he knew Mr. Humberstone, had entered into any agreement Humberstone to become a qualifying contractor for Humberstone's corporation. While that is one inference which could be drawn from the evidence, the evidence is not strong enough to permit such finding, at the level of certainty required for clear and convincing evidence, to be made. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: 1-6. Adopted 7. Rejected. There is insufficient evidence in the record to make specific finding with respect to handwriting exemplars, but the testimony of Mr. Hurley that he did not sign the St. Lucie County permit application has been accepted. Copies furnished: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Glenn N. Blake, Esquire BLAKE & TORRES Strange Building 500 South US 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Robert E. Stone, Esquire SULLIVAN, STONE, SULLIVAN LaJOIE and THACKER 100 Avenue "A", Suite 1F Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Legal Affairs ("Petitioner"), is the enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Beginning in 1974, and until its involuntary dissolution in approximately May, 1980, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing fiberglass swimming pools to the consuming public. To induce the public to enter into written contracts for the purchase of these pools, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., disseminated promotional brochures and "fact sheets" which contained representations as to the quality, nature, durability, and characteristics of its pools. Specifically, the following representations in promoting the swimming pools were made: That the pools were constructed with fiberglass and inert materials that never deteriorate; That the pools are resistant to cracking, leaking, and erosion, as well as fading mildew, rotting, rust, shattering, breaking or tearing apart; That the color in the pools is permanently molded and resists fading and never requires painting; That each pool was factory made to perfection from a perfect mold; That the pools are stain-resistant and virtually maintenance free; That the pools' high quality, one piece construction contained no seams, guaranteeing that the pools would never leak; That no need would ever exist to replaster or repair cracks or holes in the pools; That the non-porous surface of the swimming pools would stay bright and beautiful; and No professional maintenance service would ever be needed on the pool During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed concerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed con- cerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: The contractor warrants that all material used in completing the installation con- tracted herein will be new and that all work will be done in a workmanlike manner; that if any substantial defect occurs in workmanship, it will be remedied without cost to the owner if written notice is given the contractor within one year after pool completion, provided pool and equip- ment have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the contractor; and further provided that such defect is not the result of an act of God or the sub-soil or strata of the ground or the water table or circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. . . . In addition, Gold Key Pools, Inc., also made the following warranty on its pools: Gold Key Pools, Inc. warrants that all Gold Key Pools, Inc. fiberglass pool shells shall perform in a satisfactory manner with normal usage and proper care and will not rip, rust, or tear apart under normal conditions for a period of 25 years from the date of installation. This warranty shall apply only when the pool is installed by an authorized Gold Key Dealer, in accordance with our installation instructions, or by the homeowner with our supervision as per installation procedures. Within 1 year of original purchase, the factory or an authorized factory service center will repair or replace for the original purchaser any part of the fiberglass pool shell which is defective, at no costs to the original purchaser. After one year, but within 25 years of date of purchase the factory or an authorized service center will repair for the original purchaser any part of the pool shell which is defective, but the cost of Labor will be borne by the original purchaser. . . . On or about October 12, 1977, Gold Key Pools, Inc., entered into a contract for the installation of a pool and pool decking with Donald F. Planasch. Within three months after the pool was installed, the purchaser began to experience problems including cracking of the decking and hairline cracks in the pool, with consequent water loss. Gold Key attempted repairs on eight to ten occasions, but was unsuccessful. Gold Key stopped responding to complaints from the purchase in early May of 1979. On or about July 29, 1978, Gold Key entered into a contract with Edward Simmon for the installation of a pool and deck. Almost immediately after installation of the pool, the purchaser began to experience problems which included cracking of the pool shell. Gold Key attempted repairs on two or three occasions, each of which was unsuccessful. The purchaser subsequently effected repairs to the pool with another contractor. In August of 1977, Gold Key entered into a contract to install a pool and concreted decking with Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Rickert. Soon after the pool and decking were installed, the Rickerts began to experience the cracking in the concrete decking area immediately surrounding the pool. Gold Key was notified of the problem, but never effectively repaired the deck. On or about April 20, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with James March to install a pool on his property. Within six to eight months from the installation of the pool, cracks and holes developed in the surface of the pool. Gold Key was notified of these defects, but no repairs were ever attempted by Gold Key. On August 23, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with Terry Rose for the installation of a pool and decking. Shortly after installation, the purchaser experienced problems with the development of holes in the surface of the pool, some of which were almost one-inch deep, and cracks in the decking. Although Gold Key was advised of these problems, no repairs were made to them. On or about July 9, 1975, Gold Key entered into a contract for the installation of a pool on the property of Charles Young. Within one year of the installation of the pool, the purchaser experienced cracks in the surface of the pool, with consequent leakage of water from the pool. Despite having received notification, Gold Key never sent anyone to examine the problems with the pool. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Arnold F. Morris, was a shareholder, president and director of Gold Key Pools, Inc. Respondent, John Perez, was the secretary of the corporation from 1975 until his resignation in 1980. Respondent Perez was never a shareholder of Gold Key, and had no responsibility over sales, marketing, or the preparation of contracts related to sales of pools. No evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that any pool purchaser ever spoke to either Respondents Morris or Perez prior to the purchase of their pools. Sometime in 1979, Gold Key Pools, Inc., experienced a serious fire, which destroyed its manufacturing capacity. From the standpoint of manufacturing, Gold Key Pools, Inc., essentially went out of business shortly thereafter. However, Gold Key Pools did maintain a service force of employees to service pools which it had already sold for sometime after the fire. In approximately May, 1980, Gold Key Pools, Inc., ceased doing business at all. At the time it ceased doing business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., for all intents and purposes had no assets.
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise a pool construction project, willfully violated local laws, is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting and failed to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent in violation of sections 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j), and sections 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. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered pool contractor in Florida, holding license no. RP0015329 and served as the qualifying agent for Paradise Pools, Inc. (Request for Admission, responses 1- 4). Petitioner is the regulatory agency in Florida charged with the authority to regulate contractors and to determine compliance with applicable state and local building code requirements. On May 31, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Alex and Theresa Nitu for the construction of a swimming pool at the Nitu's residence at 9550 Lisa Road in Dade County, Florida. The following day, the Nitus were approached by John Davis, a partner of Paradise Pools, Inc. Davis identified himself as the owner of Paradise Pools and told the Nitus that Respondent was the company salesman. Davis is not a licensed contractor. During construction, Davis supervised the work for the Nitus' pool. Mrs. Nitu was ill and remained at home on the day the workers laid reinforcing steel for the pool shell. Mr. Nitu, an electrical contractor, took off work and was at home during the two days when the gunite work was done for their pool. Respondent was not present on the job site on those days. The day after the concrete deck was poured, the Nitus noticed that it contained several low spots which collected water and that rocks were protruding through the deck's surface. Additionally, a portion of the deck sloped toward the pool rather than away from it. The following day, the Nitus returned home from work to discover that the "whitecoat" for the deck surface was completed and their water hose, weighted down by a rock and a rag, was filling the pool. The pool was filled with water before the Nitus had completed a fence to secure the pool. At Mr. Nitu's request, James Tucker, a Dade County Building Inspector, inspected the pool on August 6, 1986. Tucker issued a notice of violation to Respondent for allowing water to be put in the pool without proper safety barriers in contravention of section 33-12, Dade County Code; for allowing the deck to slope toward the pool in contravention of section 5003.1 of the South Florida Building Code and for using concrete of less than 2500 psi strength in contravention of section 5003.1(a), South Florida Building Code. In an attempt to correct the low spots and improper slope of the patio, Davis poured an additional layer of cement over the pool deck and scored the surface to create the appearance of keystone. Thereafter, the Nitus discovered hollow areas under certain parts of the keystone. Eventually, the keystone began to separate from the original deck exposing large areas of the deck. Ben Sirkus was tendered and accepted as an expert in pool construction. Sirkus inspected the Nitu's pool on September 24, 1987, at Petitioner's request. Sirkus observed low spots in the pool deck which held water and contributed to the growth of algae. He also observed that large areas of the imitation keystone had separated from the original deck; that portions of the deck still drained towards rather than away from, the pool; that coping mortar had been left on the sides of the coping and the pool shell; that areas of the whitecoat were unusually rough and that the pool pump was off level, which in time could cause scoring of the bearings in the pump. Sirkus opined that the deficiencies observed could not have gone unnoticed by a pool contractor of average skill and ability; that deficiencies indicate poor supervision or gross negligence or that Respondent exhibited incompetence in contracting for the Nitu's pool. John Davis, Respondent's partner and the person who was usually on the site during all facets of the construction, credibly testified that when the angles were laid out for the sloping of the decks surrounding the Nitu's pool, Alex Nitu requested that his employees angle the deck toward the pool such that it would mesh with his patio. This required that Respondent's employees reslope the angles in accord with Mr. Nitu's wishes and contrary to the manner in which they originally sloped the deck. Mr. Davis also attempted to correct the problems that had surfaced surrounding the deck in accordance with the concerns expressed by the Nitus. However, the Nitus vehemently refused access to Respondent's employees and the matter therefore, remained unresolved. Respondent Reise was at the construction site on numerous occasions during the major facets of the construction. In addition to being the principal salesman for Paradise Pools, Respondent Reise has extensive experience in the construction of pools and frequently consulted with his partner, John Davis, about the ongoing construction of the Nitu's pool. Respondent Reise also attempted to gain access to the pool to attempt to correct the problems and other concerns expressed by the Nitus, to no avail. In this regard, a meeting was held at the Nitu's residence on January 30, 1987, by Jim Tucker and Robert Denery, employees of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, a Mr. Wolf, Petitioner's investigator, Respondent and his partner, John Davis. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that all problems were to be resolved which included (1), repair and patch the keystone on the east end of the pool and (2), rework the slope on the northside of the pool to pitch away from the pool and (3), submit test results from an engineering test lab as to the structural strength of the patio slab and final approval by the electrical and plumbing departments of Dade County. Respondent agreed to correct the above-referenced items and agreed to do so as quickly as feasible. The Nitus refused to allow Respondent's employees back on the site to correct the problems. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). John Davis and Respondent's other employees denied that they started filling the Nitu's pool prior to the time that the Nitus had completed a fence to secure it. Their denial in this regard is incredible and is not worthy of belief. The Nitus, in this regard, credibly testified that they were at all times concerned about the safety of the pool and would never have started filling it prior to the time that it was secured. Respondent's employees, on the other hand, were in fact interested in completing the job and it is therefore believed that they started the water running into the pool and weighted the hose down with a rock and a rag as the Nitus found it when they returned home from work on the day that the "whitecoat" was completed. In all other respects, based on the Nitus' failure to permit Respondent's employees to return to the site to complete the deficiencies and other concerns noted, the undersigned finds that Respondent should have been afforded an opportunity to correct such deficiencies and cannot be held liable 1/ for the allegations that he improperly sloped the pool deck, used improper concrete or was otherwise negligent, incompetent, engaged in misconduct and other allegations of improper supervision, as alleged. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Respondent be issued a written reprimand for allowing his employees to fill an unsecured pool in violation of the local building code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 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 19th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Florida, for-profit corporation, incorporated on June 16, 1995, with its principal office located at 821 Southeast Highway 19, Crystal River, Florida 34429. Since incorporation, Respondent has been continuously engaged in business as a scuba diving tour and retail shop. In August 2014, Department Compliance Officer Dale Russell (Investigator Russell) commenced an investigation to determine whether Respondent employed more than three employees; and, if so, whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The investigation of American Pro Diving was not instituted because of any public referral or reported injury. Rather, Investigator Russell was alerted to American Pro Diving based on "data mining." Data mining is conducted by the Department by comparing information in its computer system's workers' compensation insurance coverage database with reports provided by businesses to the Florida Department of Revenue in the form of Re- employment Assistance Tax reports known as "UCT-6s." UCT-6 information on American Pro Diving during the pertinent time period indicated that Respondent was paying unemployment insurance tax for 12 to 18 workers. The Department's database revealed that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage. On August 11, 2014, Investigator Russell visited American Pro Diving in Crystal River, Florida. On that day, Respondent's owner, Ron Goodenow, was not present or available. Mike Perry was at Respondent's service desk. Investigator Russell introduced himself to Mr. Perry and informed him that he was looking into whether employers were providing workers' compensation. Investigator Russell left his card and asked Mr. Perry to tell Respondent's owner to contact him. During his investigation, Investigator Russell discovered that, in addition to paying unemployment taxes, Respondent was making W-4 withholdings for all those working at American Pro Diving, instead of issuing Form 1099s and having workers pay their own taxes and withholdings as is typical for independent contractors. On August 13, 2014, Investigator Russell spoke to Mr. Ron Goodenow, on the telephone. Mr. Goodenow informed Investigator Russell that Respondent had no employees because all of those working at American Pro Diving were independent contractors. Mr. Goodenow explained to Investigator Russell that because of the business model, workers' compensation insurance was not available to dive shops. During the telephone conversation, Investigator Russell warned Mr. Goodenow that the Department would issue a stop-work order and shut down Respondent's operations if Respondent was out of compliance with the workers' compensation laws. Investigator Russell provided Mr. Goodenow with the name of the Florida Joint Underwriters Association and some companies that provided workers' compensation coverage. Investigator Russell also suggested, as an alternative to obtaining workers' compensation coverage, that Respondent use an employee leasing company. Investigator Russell further suggested that Mr. Goodenow exempt himself from the requirements of workers’ compensation and designate three other people as employees. Investigator Russell recommended that Respondent stop paying UCT-6 unemployment taxes on the rest of the people, stop paying their withholding taxes, and transition to a Form 1099 method of payment. He also suggested that American Pro Diving enter into signed contracts with its independent contractors. In response to warnings and suggestions that he had received from Investigator Russell, Mr. Goodenow acquired an exemption from workers’ compensation for himself on September 18, 2014,3/ and contacted the Florida Joint Underwriters Association to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Goodenow also retained Michael Dean, Esquire, as legal counsel for American Pro Diving.4/ According to Investigator Russell, during a conversation with Mr. Dean after Mr. Goodenow had advised that Mr. Dean was Respondent's counsel and spokesperson, Mr. Dean admitted that American Pro Diving employed, not as independent contractors, but as employees, Ron Goodenow, Sarah Huggett, James Corbin Straub, Maria Ellis, and Michael Strmiska. A related e-mail dated September 22, 2014, from Mr. Dean's legal assistant stated: Mr. Russell, In response to your telephone conference with Mr. Dean this morning, here is the status of the employees you requested: Sarah Huggett-See attached documents. James Corbin Straub-Shop Staff, part-time-on an "as needed basis" only. Maria Ellis-Shop Staff. Michael Strmiska-Shop Staff. Stephanie Perry-our daughter-helps mom with payroll only for extra pocket money. (Does not have to do payroll as Michele usually does it.) Attached to the e-mail was a "Captains License Receipt.pdf; Sarah Huggett-TWIC Card.pdf." Rather than finding that Mr. Dean's discussions and his legal assistant's follow-up e-mail amount to admissions that American Pro Diving had employees required to be covered by workers' compensation insurance, it is found that they amount to nothing more than settlement discussions and negotiations.5/ This finding is based upon the fact that, at the time, American Pro Diving was trying to react to Investigator Russell's warnings, as well as upon the content of e-mail attachments, which are consistent with Mr. Goodenow's unwavering assertion that those working with American Pro Diving were independent contractors. In the meantime, Mr. Goodenow's attempt to acquire workers’ compensation coverage was being frustrated. In response to his inquiry, the Florida Joint Underwriters Association suggested that Respondent be issued a class code for oil-spill cleanup workers, as opposed to a code that would reflect American Pro Diving's operations. Mr. Goodenow contacted Investigator Russell by telephone on September 26, 2014, and explained his frustration. During the conversation Mr. Goodenow reiterated his position that American Pro Diving did not have employees. After conferring with his supervisors, Investigator Russell called Mr. Goodenow back and informed him that if Respondent did not come into compliance, a stop-work order would be issued. Thereafter, without interviewing any of the "employees" purportedly identified by Mr. Dean, other than Mr. Goodenow, on October 1, 2014, the Department issued the Stop-Work Order against Respondent. It was served on October 15, 2015. Prior to service of the Stop-Work Order, on October 2, 2014, Respondent submitted workers' compensation application information to Investigator Russell with the assistance of its new legal counsel, Kristian Dunn. Although the Department introduced the submission and argued that it was an admission by Respondent that it had employees, it is found that the submission is nothing more than another attempt at settlement. See Endnote 4, below. The Department entered the Revocation on October 20, 2014, releasing the Stop-Work Order “effective back to the date of issuance.” A related Department memo dated October 20, 2014, signed by Investigator Russell and his supervisor, explained, "SWO [Stop-Work Order] was served after the employer obtained his exemption which brought the total number of employees to under four." On November 18, 2014, the Department issued the Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent in the amount of $35,429.50, without an accompanying stop-work order. The amount of the assessment was based on imputed payroll during an alleged penalty period from October 2, 2012, through October 1, 2014, for alleged employees Ron Goodenow, Sarah Huggett, James Corbin Straub, Maria Ellis, and Michael Strmiska. There is no evidence that any of the alleged employees, other than Ron Goodenow, were interviewed prior to the issuance of the Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department's Order of Penalty Assessment was amended at the beginning of the hearing upon the granting of the Department's Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment, filed June 5, 2015, just one week before the final hearing. The Department's Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reduced the Order of Penalty Assessment from $35,429.50, which was based on imputed payroll, to $3,581.96, based upon actual payroll information. The penalty period under the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is from December 5, 2013, through October 1, 2014. Nicholas Thomas, penalty auditor for the Department, calculated the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent based on the Department's allegation that Ron Goodenow, Mariah Ellis, James Corbin Straub, Michelle Goodenow, and Michael Strmiska were Respondent's employees. In the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Thomas used the payroll information in Respondent's bank records and Department of Revenue UCT-6 employment tax reports to calculate the payroll for Respondent's alleged employees. Mr. Thomas explained that, although he had the tax reports for over five months, the delay in calculating the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was because Respondent's bank records, alone, had been determined insufficient, and he was initially unsure whether he could use tax report information to assist in the calculation of actual payroll. Upon determining that he could use the tax reports, Mr. Thomas then applied the premium rate associated with retail shop operations to Respondent's payroll to determine the amounts that Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation insurance premiums for the alleged employees had Respondent secured coverage during the penalty period. As it was alleged that Respondent did not secure required workers' compensation coverage for the named employees, Mr. Thomas doubled this amount, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l., Florida Statutes, to arrive at the penalty of $3,581.96. In his testimony, Mr. Thomas admitted that a person having their UCT-6 taxes paid by a company does not automatically make that person an employee of that company. Although Mr. Thomas had made an assumption that one of the payments in Respondent's records indicated that it had paid for one of its worker’s Coast Guard certifications, at the final hearing, he admitted that the records provided by American Pro Diving did not prove that any certifications or equipment for the alleged employees was ever bought by Respondent. Mr. Thomas accurately explained that for a non- construction entity, a business with three or less employees is not required to obtain workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Thomas also correctly stated that independent contractors are not considered employees for purposes of workers’ compensation, and that such persons should not be listed on a penalty worksheet. Mr. Thomas obtained the names of the five alleged employees for the penalty calculation from Investigator Russell. Mr. Thomas did not know whether the persons he listed on the penalty worksheet had been interviewed by Investigator Russell. Although Mr. Thomas spoke to Investigator Russell's supervisor, he never spoke to Investigator Russell about the people named on the penalty worksheet. And, other than Mr. Goodenow, Mr. Thomas did not know whether the other four people listed on the penalty worksheet were independent contractors or employees. In conducting the investigation, Investigator Russell did not follow the Department's training procedures which direct its investigators to interview all alleged independent contractors. It is clear that Mr. Goodenow told Investigator Russell that all workers at American Pro Diving were independent contractors. Other than his interview of Mr. Goodenow, however, Investigator Russell did not interview any of the alleged employees listed on the penalty worksheet. In contrast, with the exception of Ron Goodenow, all of those workers at American Pro Diving interviewed by Investigator Russell were determined to be independent contractors or otherwise excluded from the penalty worksheet. According to the testimony of Kathleen Petracco, a 10- year employee of the Department, who also worked in its Bureau of Enforcement for the Division of Workers’ Compensation, it is improper and against Department procedure to assume the status of a worker by looking only at UCT-6 forms and the W-4 applications without interviewing the workers to hear how the workers describe themselves. That testimony is credited. Although there were up to 18 workers at American Pro Diving who had their UCT-6 taxes paid by Respondent, only the five listed on the penalty worksheet were deemed employees. And, for those ultimately determined to be independent contractors or otherwise absent from the penalty worksheet, Investigator Russell advised that his supervisors, not him, made the determination. He did not know the basis of that determination. During his investigation, the only person Investigator Russell observed working at the shop was Mike Perry, but Mike Perry was not classified as an employee or listed on the penalty worksheet. Investigator Russell attempted to explain the decision of who to list on the penalty worksheet by referencing information he had seen on Respondent's website, which describes the various backgrounds and talents of those working at American Pro Diving. It is found, however, that the website information was insufficient to establish whether those workers were employees when compared to the actual testimony and other evidence adduced at the final hearing. Respondent's owner, Goodenow, gave credible testimony regarding his dive shop's business model and its dependence on independent contractors. Mr. Goodenow bought the dive shop 15 years ago. Since that time, he has been its president and only officer. Before he bought it, Mr. Goodenow was an independent contractor for the previous owners of the dive shop, not an employee. As now-owner and president, Mr. Goodenow was an employee of American Pro Diving prior to receiving his exemption. American Pro Diving’s business depends on tourists in the Crystal River area for recreational diving tours. The tours, in turn, are dependent on the seasons, the weather, and manatee availability. As usual and customary for American Pro Diving and other dive tour businesses in the industry, Respondent utilizes individual independent contractors, as opposed to employees, in order to remain profitable and competitive. With the use of independent contractors, labor costs remain flexible and can adapt to seasonal and weather fluctuations which impact the number of tourists. In addition, the dive industry traditionally has been populated by individuals that prefer to be independent contractors because of the increased independence, mobility, and schedule flexibility. The independent contractors utilized by American Pro Diving provide their own gear and are responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of their educational and professional credentials. None of the workers at American Pro Diving have fixed employment schedules, there are no hourly wages, and everyone is paid based on tasks they undertake, such as participating in dive tours, handling boats, or cleaning the pool utilized for instruction. In addition, the workers’ pay is dependent on the number of customers on a boat, commissions from gear sold, tips received from customers, or the numbers of videos sold to the tourists. Under Coast Guard regulations, vessel captains are ultimately responsible for their passengers. All captains working with American Pro Diving carry, and personally pay for, insurance to cover that potential liability. In fact, all of the workers at American Pro Diving carry their own liability insurance, with the exception Mr. Straub and Mr. Strmiska, who are teenagers without requisite experience. America Pro Diving is insured for up to $2,000,000 for the building and $2,000,000 for the business to cover its customers and independent contractors. The coverage is specifically designed to cover independent contractors and customers, not employees. All of those working at American Pro Diving, with the exception of Mr. Straub and Mr. Strmiska, possess Transportation Worker Identification Cards (TWIC) issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Those workers paid for the card application, background check, and renewal. No portion of the expense was paid by Respondent. Mr. Goodenow gave those working at American Pro Diving the option of receiving payments using the W-4 tax form method whereby Respondent took out withholdings, as opposed to the form 1099 method. For convenience, all of the workers initially chose the W-4 method. The reason that Respondent also paid unemployment taxes, evidenced by UCT-6 reports for the workers, was because Respondent’s accountant advised Mr. Goodenow to do so to be consistent with the W-4 form withholdings. During the investigation in this case, however, Respondent began using the form 1099 method of payment and stopped making withholdings. Ms. Michelle Goodenow is Mr. Goodenow’s wife. Although married to Mr. Goodenow, she is not an owner or officer of American Pro Diving and shares no financial accounts with Respondent or her husband. Ms. Goodenow is a licensed captain who maintains her own gear and pays for her own insurance, TWIC card, dive certifications, captain’s credentials and training costs. She also developed a school outreach program and makes school presentations to bring in school groups to American Pro Diving for tours. The amount of her pay is not by hourly wage or salary, but based upon the amount of business she brings to American Pro Diving. She makes no money if no customers are booked and could suffer a financial loss if any of the equipment is damaged. She receives no sick leave or vacation. She is free to take her business to another dive shop if she chooses. Ms. Goodenow chose to have her taxes withheld by Respondent via the W-4 method out of convenience, not because she considered herself to be an employee. She has always viewed herself as an independent contractor and never considered herself to be an employee. The Department excluded all other licensed captains from its list of Respondent’s alleged employees. The evidence otherwise demonstrates that Ms. Goodenow is not an employee of American Pro Diving, but rather, is an independent contractor. Michael Strmiska is Mr. and Mrs. Goodenow’s son. There is no evidence that he has ever had an ownership interest in American Pro Diving. He was 17 years old at the time of Investigator Russell’s investigation and 18 years old at the final hearing. He possesses his own open-water diving credentials and equipment for work. Mr. Strmiska works at American Pro Diving in “tour support.” Tour support encompasses a variety of tasks from helping customers with gear, helping tour operators with boat handling and summer snorkel camps, and loading and unloading the boats. While helping gear-up customers, he also sells gear and receives commissions for sales over $1,500. He has never received any hourly wage for the tasks he completed at American Pro Diving. A good portion of the money Mr. Strmiska made at American Pro Diving was through conducting snorkel camps in the summer with young children. If he did not have any attendees, he would make no money. If the attendees were few in number, his profits were less, because he was responsible for the cost of setting up the camp, gas for the trucks, and potential for damage to the equipment for which he was responsible. Like the others working at American Pro Diving, Mr. Strmiska never had a set schedule and would call in for available work. He has always viewed himself as an independent contractor due to the fact that he could work as much or as little as he wanted. His skill and training are not entry level. The money that he made was variable, depending on the number of customers going on trips or purchasing gear. He also had the option of accruing extra money on a per-task basis, as opposed to hourly, by completing extra tasks, such as cleaning the boats, washing the trucks, and cleaning the indoor pool area. The evidence showed that Mr. Strmiska was an independent contractor. Maria Ellis is a 28-year-old female, divemaster- certified videographer for American Pro Diving tours. Although not a licensed boat captain at the time of the investigation, she was working to get her hours to become a licensed captain. While receiving tips from customers for her work as a boat mate, the majority of her income was derived from sales of DVDs to customers from her videography. If she failed to execute a high-quality product, her sales would suffer. Although she had her own video equipment when she moved to Crystal River to work with American Pro Diving, she used Respondent’s camera to film the dive shop’s customers because it was compatible with the DVD copier at the dive shop. She was responsible for any damage to the equipment. Ms. Ellis brought her own particular videographer skills to American Pro Diving that she acquired on her own through hours of practice, personal expense, and trial and error. Ms. Ellis was otherwise responsible for her own gear, liability insurance, dive certifications, dive equipment, and was never paid by an hourly wage. Other than tips and payments as a mate on a per-capita basis, she made no money if no videos were sold and could suffer a financial loss if any of the equipment was broken. In order to work a tour, Ms. Ellis would call into American Pro Diving to see if work was available. Although Ms. Ellis chose to have her taxes withheld under the W-4 method for convenience, she always considered herself a sole proprietor, independent contractor, with her office at her home. The facts support this conclusion. James Corben Straub, who was at all pertinent times a teenager, was the only one listed on the Department’s penalty calculation sheet, other than Mr. Goodenow, who testified at the final hearing that he considered himself an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor. His testimony was different than his deposition testimony, wherein, in response to a question of whether he was an independent contractor, he testified that it could go either way. Mr. Straub testified that he changed his opinion about whether he was an independent contractor after doing some research and considering the fact that he had been required to sign a non-compete agreement with American Pro Diving.6/ During the time that he worked at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub was never paid an hourly wage and was not on a work schedule, but rather found out whether there was work to be done by calling in. In fact, Mr. Straub was infrequently at American Pro Diving because of his involvement with the Four-H Club. While working at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub’s pay was based on a task-by-task basis, even if the tasks took longer on some days than others. His tasks and opportunities at American Pro Diving were similar to those of Mr. Strmiska. Like Mr. Strmiska and other independent contractors at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub could potentially suffer a loss from damaging a vehicle or equipment under his charge. Mr. Straub admitted that he chose to be paid on a W-4 tax withholding basis for convenience, instead of having to fill out a quarterly report, if paid under the Form 1099 method. He never received traditional benefits associated with employees. When he attempted to renegotiate with Mr. Goodenow for an employee-type position with traditional benefits, he was unsuccessful. Mr. Straub may not have considered himself an independent contractor when he testified at trial, but his work schedule, responsibilities and expectations were much the same as other independent contractors working at American Pro Diving.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, dismissing the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by allegedly committing incompetence or misconduct by "poor soil compaction" and by failing to honor the terms of a written warranty.
Findings Of Fact The four-count Administrative Complaint contains factual allegations in 15 numbered paragraphs. Respondent does not dispute paragraphs 1 through 9, 14, and 15. Petitioner is the state agency statutorily charged with regulating pool contracting in the state. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a pool contractor pursuant to license number CP C052509. Respondent's business address is Bazar Pools, Inc., 6214 All America Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32810. On March 6, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Mr. Rex Davidson (the contract). Respondent agreed to construct a residential cantilever deck swimming pool at Davidson's residence located at 2800 Granada Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida (the pool). Mr. Davidson agreed to pay $19,300 for the pool. Respondent completed the pool sometime in April 1998. Mr. Davidson paid the full amount due under the contract. The contract warranted the "pool structure" for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. Sometime in July of 2000, a crack emerged around the top edge of the pool above the tiles that lined the upper edge of the pool. As the crack worsened, the tiles began to fall off the pool. Respondent did not repair the crack and tiles. Mr. Davidson paid approximately $7,025 to a company identified in the record as Blue Diamond to repair the crack and tile. The contract did not include Respondent's license number. Respondent did not obtain a certificate of authority to do business as Bazar Pools, Inc., at the time he entered into the contract. The contract did not contain a written explanation of consumer rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. Respondent does not dispute Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint charging that the acts described in this paragraph violated Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent disputes the charge in Count I of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct. Paragraphs 10 through 12 of the Administrative Complaint contain the only factual allegations relevant to the charge of incompetence or misconduct. The disputed factual allegations state: Around July of 2000, the pool developed a crack which extended around the entire perimeter and caused the tiles to fall off because of poor soil compaction. The pool's structure is warranted to remain structurally sound for the period of time that it is owned by the original owner. Mr. Davidson contacted Respondent to get the pool repaired, but Respondent failed to take corrective action. The literal terms of allegations in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint led the trier of fact to expect Petitioner to show that Respondent improperly compacted soil under the deck and thereby allowed the deck to settle. However, Petitioner submitted little, if any, evidence pertaining to how Respondent compacted the soil under the deck before Respondent poured the concrete deck. Respondent obtained the three required county inspection approvals before each step in the construction of the pool. The inspections included an inspection to ensure proper soil grade prior to pouring the pool deck. The inspections ensured that Respondent constructed the pool in accordance with stamped engineering drawings that the county required Respondent to file as a prerequisite for a building permit from the county. The vast majority of the evidence that Petitioner submitted during the hearing was relevant to allegations that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in two ways. First, Respondent arguably constructed the pool shell and deck as a unitized structure so that the crack and tile problems evolved as the deck settled when underlying soil compacted. Second, Respondent arguably failed to honor the warranty in the contract. As a threshold matter, paragraph 10 in the Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct by poor pool construction. Rather, paragraph 10 alleges only that a crack developed in the pool and tiles fell off because of "poor soil compaction." Nevertheless, the parties spent substantial hearing time submitting evidence relevant to allegations of incompetence and misconduct not specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint. In order to prove that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by poor pool construction, Petitioner relies on expert opinion to show that Respondent constructed the pool and deck as a unitized structure. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent must have connected the concrete pool shell to the concrete deck either by steel rods, identified in the record as rebar, or by a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. The expert reasoned that settling of the deck could not have caused the crack in the pool unless the deck and pool shell were connected as a unitized body. Several flaws in the expert opinion offered by Petitioner prevent that testimony from reaching the level of clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner's expert did not relate his opinion to facts in evidence. First, Petitioner's expert never inspected the original construction of the pool. The expert visually inspected only the repaired pool and based his opinion on an hour and a-half inspection of the repaired pool. Counsel for Petitioner illustrated the inherent problem in such testimony when he objected to the testimony of one of Respondent's experts on the grounds that the opinion was based on a post-repair inspection. Counsel for Petitioner explained the problem as follows: Objection. Your Honor, [Respondent's expert] is testifying based on his observations of the pool as repaired by Blue Diamond. He never did - he never has made a personal observation of the pool prior to that repair when it was in the condition attributable to [Respondent's] construction method. So, he's testifying without any particular personal knowledge relative to [Respondent's] conduct. Transcript (TR) at 220-221. When Petitioner's expert inspected the post-repair pool, he did not remove the deck to determine whether the top of the pool shell was, in fact, either connected by steel to the deck or otherwise mechanically bonded to the deck. The only competent and substantial evidence in the record of whether the pool shell and the deck were constructed as a unitized structure came from Respondent. Respondent did not use rebar to connect the pool shell to the pool deck. Respondent stopped the rebar approximately two inches below the top of the pool shell. Respondent used mortar, identified in the record as "mud," to smooth variations or undulations, in the top edge of the pool shell and thereby bring the entire top edge of the pool shell up to "dead level." The maximum variation in the top edge of the pool shell prior to leveling did not exceed 1.25 inches. After the mud dried, Respondent intentionally did not clean the top edge of the pool shell. The dirt and debris remaining on the top edge of the pool shell would normally prevent a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the concrete deck. The construction technique used by Respondent to construct the pool complies with generally accepted standards for the industry. Respondent has constructed over a thousand pools since 1987 using the same or similar construction techniques. He generally constructs large residential pools in "high-end" neighborhoods that cost customers $40,000 or more, but has constructed some commercial pools. Respondent has never had this problem with his other pools and has never had any previous discipline against his license. The expert opinion offered by Petitioner has another flaw that keeps the testimony from being clear and convincing to the trier of fact. The expert concludes that the deck settled, in relevant part, because "the pool cracked and the tile fell off." In an interrelated ratiocination, the expert concludes that the pool cracked and the tile fell off because the deck settled. Petitioner's expert also concluded that the deck settled because he observed cracks in the deck when he visually inspected the post-repair pool in 2004. He concluded from the cracks he observed in 2004 that settling of the deck in 2000 caused the crack in the pool and the tile problems. Petitioner's expert did not measure the cracks or inspect them to determine if any differential existed in the cracks that would suggest soil compaction under the deck. Petitioner's expert is an expert in pool construction, but is not an expert in pool engineering and design. One of Respondent's expert witnesses is an expert in pool engineering and design. He concluded that the deck did not settle in 2000. The characteristics of the cracks in the post-repair deck in 2004 were consistent with cracks caused by heat expansion and contraction from cooling when joints in the concrete were improperly spaced. The cracks did not exhibit differential settling of the deck. The theory that the crack in the pool and tile problems could not have occurred "but for" the settling of the deck is less than clear and convincing. Faulty installation of the tile by subcontractors is a more likely cause of the problems with the pool and the tile. However, Petitioner neither alleged that Respondent engaged in such acts or that Respondent's license is subject to discipline for the acts of his subcontractors. Finally, the testimony of Petitioner's expert is based on subjective standards while the testimony of Respondent's experts is based on intelligible standards published for the entire industry. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in constructing the pool based on the expert's personal experience and on the way the expert has constructed pools for many years. Respondent's two experts opined that Respondent complied with written standards of workmanship published by the National Spa and Pool Institute in June 1996 (Workmanship Standards). Aside from whether the pool and deck were joined as a unitized structure, Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent "shot" the pool shell about two inches short of where it should have been, used mud to build up the pool shell, and applied tile over the resulting "cold joint" between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. Petitioner's expert opined that laying tile over a cold joint is incompetence and misconduct in his experience. Respondent's experts disagree. They opined that laying tile over a cold joint is the normal practice in the industry. Petitioner's expert agreed that it is commonplace for contractors to lay tile over a cold joint and that problems arise in only one in fifty jobs. The trier of fact has discussed the competing testimony of the parties' experts to illustrate that the burden of proof is the fulcrum of decision in this case. The applicable burden of proof does not require a preponderance of evidence to show that Respondent constructed the pool in a competent manner. Rather, the trier of fact need only find that the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct in constructing the pool. The remaining allegation is that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by failing to honor the warranty and repair the pool. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent failed to honor the warranty. Sometime in June 2001, Mr. Davidson verbally complained to Respondent that a crack around the pool above the tile line had developed and that tiles around the top edge of the pool were detaching from the pool. Respondent sent a company representative to the site to evaluate the problem. Respondent also sent a service representative to the site to retrieve some of the tiles. Sometime in July 2001, Mr. Davidson again verbally complained to Respondent about the crack and tiles. By letter dated August 8, 2001, Mr. Davidson notified Respondent that a crack had developed behind the tiles sometime in the summer of 2000. The letter stated that the tiles were falling off of the side of the pool. Respondent offered to provide Mr. Davidson with an estimate of the cost of repair. Mr. Davidson elected to have Blue Diamond make the repairs. The pool structure was warranted for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. It is undisputed that the pool shell was well made and water tight. The parties dispute whether the pool structure included the one or two-inch area between the top of the pool shell and the deck, as well as the deck. The contract defined the pool structure by excluding the deck, equipment, tile, and any item other than the pool shell. The definition in the contract is consistent with that in the Workmanship Standards. Petitioner's attempt to rely on a general definition of the term "structure" in a dictionary is not persuasive when considered in the light of the definitions in the contract and the Workmanship Standards. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the pool structure included the deck and intervening area because all of the parts were constructed as a unitized structure. Based on previous findings, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that the pool shell and deck were constructed as a unitized structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Count I. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 John A. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of John A. Shughart, Jr. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305A Maitland, Florida 32751 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Henry J. Tinkler was licensed by petitioner as a swimming pool contractor, holding license No. 0024949, under the name of "Henry J. Tinkler." At one time, Fred C. Charlton worked as a "salesman" of swimming pool construction contracts for a Ft. Lauderdale construction company. When the Ft. Lauderdale company failed, several contracts to build swimming pools remained unexecuted. So that his "sales" would not have been in valid, Mr. Charlton organized Aquapool in late 1978 or early 1979 to step in to the shoes of the Ft. Lauderdale contractor. He has been president of the corporation since its inception. He knew that he could not pull building permits himself; and Mr. Charlton did not involve himself in the actual construction of the pools. Respondent became vice-president of Aquapool and held this office until September of 1979. Respondent has built several pools pursuant to oral agreements with Charlton (acting for Aquapool), to build all pools Aquapool "sold" in Pinellas County. In these transactions, Charlton made a profit and Tinkler made a profit. Respondent never applied for any building permit under Aquapool's name. He always used his own name or the name "Hank's Custom Pools." Respondent never made application to qualify Aquapool as a registered pool contractor in Florida. Neither did respondent make application to qualify "Hank's Custom Pools" as a registered pool contractor. Not uncommonly, contractors do business under fictitious trade names like "Hank's Custom Pools." Eventually one Clay Andrews of Jacksonville made application to quality Aquapool as a swimming pool contractor in Florida until November 17, 1979. Harry George Pugh and Grace L. Pugh signed, on May 19, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their Indian Rocks Beach home. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On the building permit application form, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the contractor is listed as "Hank's Custom Pools." The application is dated June 19, 1979. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. Guy Jean and Jane A. Narejo also contracted with Aquapool to build a swimming pool at their home in Largo, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. On June 14, 1979, "H. Tinkler" applied for a permit to build the pool. The permit issued the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Willard L. Marks and Helen J. Marks signed, on May 1, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their home in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Mr. Marks never met Mr. Tinkler. H. J. Tinkler applied for a permit to build the pool on June 7, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Swimming pool contractors ordinarily subcontract electrical work. Sometimes as many as four or five subcontractors participate in the building of a swimming pool. Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been considered and proposed findings of fact have been adopted except where they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration as a swimming pool contractor for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Tampa, Florida 33609 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3043 HENRY J. TINKLER, RP 0024949 d/b/a Individual 5243 27th Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On October 10, 1979, the Respondent entered into a written swimming pool contract with Mr. and Mrs. Stellato, wherein the Respondent agreed to construct a swimming pool for them on their property in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. Among other things this swimming pool contract provided for the payment of a total purchase price of $11,225.00 to be paid in the following manner: ten percent to be paid at the signing of the contract. fifty percent to be paid upon the installation of the tank. thirty-five percent to be paid upon completion of the base decking and screen enclosure. five percent, or the balance of the purchase price, to be paid when the filter system was put in operation. Further, this contract provided that if the purchasers of the swimming pool failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the prescribed schedule, the contractor reserved the right to suspend all work on the swimming pool, and to suspend all warranty work due after completion of the pool. During the month of February, 1980, the Respondent, acting through his duly authorized representatives, did all acts necessary to cause the filter system of the subject swimming pool to become operable, and requested that the Stellatos pay the five percent balance due under the contract. The Stellatos failed to make this final payment, claiming that there was a problem with the pool decking. In response to this complaint the Respondent personally met with the Stellatos, and agreed to cover the problem area of the decking with Chattahoochee River Rock at no cost to the Stellatos. In exchange for this agreement the Stellatos agreed to pay the balance due under the contract. Thereupon, the Respondent installed Chattahoochee River Rock over a substantial portion of the decking at his own expense. During the installation of this Chattahoochee River Rock, Mrs. Stellato contacted the Respondent by phone and demanded that he also install, at his own expense, Chattahoochee River Rock over an existing concrete patio area that had not been built by the Respondent. The Respondent refused to incur this additional expense, because it was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Thereafter, the Stellatos again failed to pay the balance due under the contract. The subject swimming pool was inspected by an inspector for Palm Bay, and the City issued a certificate of occupancy in June of 1980. The pool was ready for a certificate of occupancy in February of 1980 except for the removal of one pile of dirt that still remained on the premises. All other aspects of the pool construction passed inspection in February of 1980 when the pool filter system was activated. Since February Of 1980, the Stellatos have had full use of the subject swimming pool. Except for alleging that some low spots remain in the pool decking, the Petitioner offered no substantial evidence of any other significant problem with the Respondent's construction. Notwithstanding the failure of the Stellatos to pay the balance of the contract price in a timely manner, the Respondent performed warranty work on the subject swimming pool after February of 1980. During the course of this warranty work the Respondent added chlorine chemicals to the pool because the Stellatos had failed to properly maintain it up to June of 1980. Another claim concerning a leaking pipe on the pool sweep did not manifest itself until April of 1981, after the expiration of the one year warranty period afforded by the Respondent to all customers. The Petitioner offered no evidence to show that the leak in this pipe was caused by the Respondent. Notwithstanding the expiration of the warranty period, and the lack of evidence to show that the leak was caused by the Respondent, he did send an employee to the job site and stopped the water leak, at no cost to the Stellatos. On several occasions when the Respondent or his employees attempted to satisfy the complaints of the Stellatos, they had to leave the job site because of the abusive language and conduct directed toward them by the Stellatos. In one instance Mr. Stellato ordered the Respondent's employees from the job site and prevented performance of any work under the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against John W. Thornett be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1982.
