The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner was unlawfully terminated from his employment with Respondent based upon his age and in retaliation for protected activity; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact In June 2016, Petitioner, a 58-year-old man, responded to an advertisement for laborers posted by Aerotek, an employee leasing company. Petitioner was hired and told he would be placed as a general laborer with Advanced Roofing for a solar panel installation job at the Lake Worth landfill. Petitioner attended a safety orientation presented by Advanced Roofing in June but was not actually placed at the job site until August 1, 2016. Advanced Roofing is a roofing company that employs approximately 380 workers for commercial roofing jobs, HVAC, and solar panel installation throughout Florida. It also contracts with Aerotek and CLP, employee leasing companies, to supply laborers to specific job sites on an as needed basis. Advanced Roofing has an agreement with Aerotek to pay designated hourly wage rates to Aerotek based upon job classification. It is up to the discretion of Aerotek to determine what wages are paid to individual laborers. Petitioner's Employment at Advanced Roofing's Job Site Based upon Petitioner's prior experience, he was classified by Aerotek as a general laborer and assigned by Advanced Roofing to supervise a crew for the pouring of concrete pillars. He reported to, and received direction from, Advanced Roofing's site supervisor, Paul Burns. Petitioner received an hourly wage from Aerotek in the amount of $13.00 per hour. Shortly after beginning work with Advanced Roofing, Petitioner complained repeatedly to Mr. Burns that he should be paid more based upon his experience and the fact that he was asked to supervise others. Mr. Burns explained that Advanced Roofing does not control what Aerotek pays its workers but that he would speak to Aerotek about a possible raise. Petitioner discussed his pay concerns with co-worker Allen Andrews, who was approximately 30 years old. Mr. Andrews told Petitioner he thought he (Mr. Andrews) too should be paid more based upon his skill set. In fact, Mr. Andrews apparently addressed this issue with Aerotek and received a pay raise from Aerotek to $15.00 per hour. After Mr. Andrews showed Petitioner his pay stub, Petitioner asked Mr. Burns whether Mr. Andrews was being paid more because he was younger. Petitioner believes Mr. Andrews received the requested raise despite being less qualified than Petitioner and holding no license or certification. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows that Mr. Andrews was classified as an "electrical helper" by Aerotek and had prior electrical conduit experience that Petitioner did not have. On October 3, 2016, Petitioner sent a text message to his immediate supervisor, Ray Mason, at 4:13 a.m., advising he was coming back to town from Orlando and would be arriving late for work that day. Petitioner explained that the laborers were instructed to call in as soon as they knew they would be late or absent. At 5:50 a.m., Mr. Mason replied, "Do you see what time it is man? You just cut my sleep. Don't come back." Over the course of Petitioner's assignment to Advanced Roofing from Aerotek, Petitioner, by his own admission, missed at least three days of work. According to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner missed five days of work during that time and was repeatedly late. Although Petitioner testified that other younger workers routinely missed work or came in late without calling in and without consequence, he offered no corroborating evidence. Prior to his termination, Petitioner received no counseling or written discipline regarding performance or attendance. On September 28, 2016, Advanced Roofing contacted Aerotek to supply four more workers to the Lake Worth site due to concerns regarding slowing productivity. Advanced Roofing dismissed several workers in addition to Petitioner on October 3, 2016, based on absenteeism and decreased productivity. After being dismissed by Advanced Roofing, Aerotek offered to place Petitioner elsewhere. Because it would be approximately eight weeks before Aerotek would have another assignment for Petitioner, he declined reassignment and accepted a settlement package. Allegations of Drug Use and Safety Hazards After he was told not to return to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner contacted the City of Lake Worth by email to complain about drug use, intoxication, and fighting among employees. Petitioner also wrote Rob Kornahrens, Advanced Roofing's president, making similar allegations and detailing how workers were instructed by supervisors how to pass drug tests by pinning a condom with clean urine from another person to the inside of their pants to keep it at body temperature and using it to fill the urine drug test container. Petitioner contends he also raised safety concerns prior to his termination about co-workers fighting and using drugs on the job. Petitioner believes he was terminated in part due to these "whistle-blowing" activities. Advanced Roofing undertook an investigation into Petitioner's post-termination allegations, including drug testing at the worksite of 23 workers. Two workers refused to test and six others failed. However, the investigation did not confirm the widespread drug use or on-the-job intoxication alleged by Petitioner. Advanced Roofing denies that its supervisors instructed employees how to fool the test. Further, no significant incidents of fighting at the Lake Worth project were brought to the attention of management before or after Petitioner's termination. Aerotek's Employment of Other Older Workers Petitioner claims he was the oldest worker of the crew at Advanced Roofing. However, Petitioner admitted that Calvin Palmer, age 63, also worked as an electrical helper/laborer for Advanced Roofing at the Lake Worth site while Petitioner was employed. Mr. Palmer, who was hired as a laborer with electrical experience through another temporary service, has become a regular employee of Advanced Roofing and currently earns $23.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700134. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2017.
The Issue The issues in Case No. 07-4376PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), 489.119(2), 489.126(2)(a), and 489.129(1)(j), (m), and (o), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed. The issues in Case No. 07-4377PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.1425(1), and 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Mr. Roach is, and was at all times material to this action, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CCC1326005. Mr. Roach's Certified Roofing Contractor License No. CCC1326005 is current and active. Mr. Roach's current addresses of record are Post Office Box 345, Orange Springs, Florida, and 22204 U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. At all times material to this action, Mr. Roach was a licensed qualifier for All Florida Roofing Contractors, Inc. (All Florida). There is evidence in the record sufficient to establish that Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for a violation under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Notably, Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for, among other things, violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(m) and (o), Florida Statutes. Case No. 07-4376PL Mr. Roach failed to obtain a Certificate of Authority for All Florida, as required by Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. On or about August 23, 2004, Mr. Pang contracted with Mr. Roach, to remove and replace the hurricane-damaged roof of his hotel property located at 1620 West Vine Street, Kissimmee, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $40,000.00. Mr. Pang made an initial payment of $2,250.00 on August 22, 2004, and another payment of $20,000.00 on August 23, 2004. As part of the contract, All Florida was required to pull the building permits for the project, and Mr. Roach failed to do this. Mr. Roach commenced work on the project on or about September 7, 2004. On or about late September 2004, he ceased work on the project, and the project remained unfinished. Mr. Pang paid All Florida an additional $10,000.00 on September 16, 2004. On October 1, 2004, the City of Kissimmee issued a Notice of Violation against Mr. Pang for failure to have a building permit for the work that had been performed by Mr. Roach on the roof. Mr. Roach scheduled repairs on the project, but did not return to the project. Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. Later, another contractor hired by Mr. Pang finished the roofing project at a cost of an additional $32,975.00. Case No. 07-4377PL On or about September 15, 2004, Ms. Perez contracted with Mr. Roach to repair roof damage to her residence at 1502 Golden Poppy Court, Orlando, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $7,268.32, of which Mr. Roach was paid $3,634.16 on September 18, 2004. The contract entered into between Ms. Perez and Mr. Roach failed to inform the homeowner of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. On or about October 27, 2004, the Orange County Building Department issued Mr. Roach a permit for the aforementioned project (Permit No. T04018050). Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. On September 25, 2004, Ms. Perez paid $3,614.16 to All Florida, which was the remaining amount of the contract. Another contractor was hired by Ms Perez to correct deficient aspects of Mr. Roach's work on the roof at a cost of $900.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered whose outcome is the following: That in Case No. 07-4376PL Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), (j), (m) and (o), Florida Statutes; Dismiss Count II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 07-4376PL; In Case No. 07-4376PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; no administrative fine is recommended for the violation of 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, because the violation is included in the violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (o), Florida Statutes; That in Case No. 07-4377PL, Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes; In Case No. 07-4377PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Pang in the amount of $25,000; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Ms. Perez in the amount of $900; and Revoking Respondent's contractor license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 31st day of March, 2008.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 8, 2000, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent is licensed as a contractor in the state, pursuant to license number CC C052471. Respondent was the qualifying agent of Johnston Roofing from October 2, 1991 to January 2, 1997. Thereafter, the Respondent was the qualifying agent of United Roofing. As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of the contracting activities of Johnston Roofing and United Roofing, respectively, in accordance with Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes. On or about December 6, 1994, Sharon and Calvin Thayer (the Thayers) entered into a written contract with Respondent to replace the roof on the Thayer residence located at 1424 Sailboat Circle, in Wellington, Florida. The total price for work contemplated in the contract was $9,825.00. The Thayers paid this bill in full. Following the execution of the contract, Respondent replaced the existing cedar shake roof with three-dimensional fiberglass shingles. In addition, Respondent replaced the skylight and installed a ridge vent. The contract provided a five-year warranty for workmanship and materials. In September 1997, within the warranty period, a piece of the bedroom popcorn ceiling, approximately one square foot in size, fell down. The shingle was damp and water stained. The Thayers notified Respondent, via telephone, of the problem and invoked their rights under the warranty. A woman who identified herself as "Johnnie" and claimed to be acting on behalf of Respondent received the Thayers' complaint. Pursuant to her instructions, the Thayers faxed Respondent a copy of the contract, including the warranty. The Thayers made several more phone calls to Respondent's office before receiving a substantive response to their complaint. It was not until January 1998 that Respondent sent an employee to assess the problem. Respondent's employee acknowledged that there was a leak and stated that it was caused by a pinhole around the skylight area. He promised to return with the materials necessary to make the repair. Despite this promise, Respondent neither returned to make repairs nor contacted the Thayers to explain why. The Thayers resumed making phone calls to Johnnie. After several unsuccessful attempts to get an explanation, Johnnie informed the Thayers that the skylight was not covered in the warranty. Sometime in early 1998, the Thayers made a second separate warranty claim. This problem related to water leakage in the chimney area of the living room. Telephone calls to Respondent's place of business were all answered by Johnnie, who promised to pass the messages along. Respondent took no action until December 1, 1998, when he sent another inspector to the Thayer residence. Respondent's inspector stated that fixing the problem would entail re-doing the entire living room and dining room portions of the roof, as well as the skylight, or approximately one-third of the roof. He made a stop-gap repair, advising the Thayers that this would not be a long-term solution. He also expressed the view that Respondent would not favorably receive his suggestion to undertake substantial repairs to the roof. Respondent had no further direct or indirect communication with the Thayers and at no time took any affirmative step to honor the warranty. The leaks were solely the result of Respondent's failure to properly perform the installation of the Thayers' roof in accordance with industry standards and manufacturers' specifications for the materials utilized. More specifically, Respondent installed the roof improperly at the so-called cricket areas; in addition, the flashings, which were to have been replaced pursuant to the contract, had not been replaced. It would be possible to repair the roof to the extent that it would no longer leak; however, it would be impossible to match new shingles to the exact color of the existing shingles, due to normal discoloration which occurs as part of the aging/weathering process. The Thayers are thus faced with a Hobson's choice: accepting a patchwork quilt effect, which reduces aesthetic and resale value, or replacing the entire roof at considerably more cost. Respondent's performance deficiencies were within the scope of warranty. The Thayers fully honored their obligations under the contract and were likewise entitled to have the warranty honored. In June 1999, Respondent was placed on probation in connection with significant violations of the Florida Statutes regulating the construction business. In a hearing not involving disputed issues of material fact conducted by Petitioner, it was determined that Respondent had violated various provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, each of which had resulted in injury to his roofing customers. As penalties for these previous violations, an administrative fine of $12,375.00 had been imposed upon Respondent. In addition, Respondent was assessed costs of $5,848.03; placed on probation for seven years; and ordered to pay a total of $43,455.66 in restitution to 14 customers. The Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution in this case as of May 18, 2001, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, totaled $308.36.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes; revoking Respondent's license; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00; requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Thayers in the amount of $9,825.00; and requiring Respondent to pay costs of Petitioner's investigation in the amount of $308.36. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 27th day of August, 2001.
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the charged provisions of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for his conduct?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and has been, at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CCC 132557. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for JCSI Certified Roofing Contractors (JCSI), which has been issued certificate of authority number QB 47568. On or about April 7, 2006, Respondent, doing business as JCSI, entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. John Shields to install a stone coated steel shingle roof at 518 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The contract amount was $50,850.00, and the contract included the following work: Scope of Work: Steel roof to be mechanically fastened on a single ply system and consist [sic] of the following: Peel & Stick base sheet (same as Ice and water Shield), stone coated drip edge. Mechanically fasten roof panels according to wind chart specifications. Matching stone coated trim. All flashing to be minimum 26 gauge. Vents, valley metals, and flashing as required. Stone coated steel roof, color selection by Client. Steel roof to be installed to manufacturers wind chart specifications. All work to be done in a workmanlike manner with complete job cleanup of roofing debris placed in on-site container provided by Owner/Contractor. The draw schedule in the contract was listed as follows: Deposit $5,000.00 at signing (dry- in);$15,000.00 order materials; $15,600.00 At beginning of production, Balance at completion. The contract did not contain Respondent's license number or the certificate of authority number of JCSI Certified Roofing Contractors. The Shields paid the initial deposit of $5,000.00 upon signing the contract. Within a couple of weeks, Respondent performed the dry-in for the roof. On August 17, 2006, the Shields paid an additional $15,000.00 with check number 1461, which was deposited into JCSI's account August 18, 2006. In total, the Shields paid $20,000.00 toward the contract price. Respondent also installed flashing for the project, although the timing of this part of the job is unclear from the record. However, from testimony presented, it is found that the flashing was installed sometime in August 2006, in the two weeks before or after the August 17, 2006 payment. No other work was performed on the job by Respondent or JCSI. Respondent ordered materials for the roof from Gerard Roofing in June 2006. However, he did not receive the materials from the company because his credit with Gerard was over- extended. He claims that he reported this to the Shields and suggested that they pay for the materials directly and deduct that amount from the contract price, and he would finish the job. The order form from Gerard Roofing Technologies indicates that the roofing materials ordered in June 2006 totaled $21,570.11. Assuming that the order form represented materials for the Shields job only, had the Shields agreed to Respondent's proposed alteration in the contract, they would have paid $41,570.11 toward the completion of the roof at a time when the only work performed was the initial dry-in and possibly the flashing installation. This would have represented 81.75% of the contract price. As it is, the Shields had paid 39.33% of the contract price already. The Shields did not agree with Respondent's proposed alteration of the contract. By February 2007, no additional work had been performed on the roof and Respondent did not re-order the roofing materials. At that point, Mr. Shields terminated the contract. The investigative costs incurred by the Department, not including those associated with an attorney's time, are $288.22.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(i), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts I, IV and VI of the Administrative Complaint; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (i) and (o), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts II, III and V of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing those counts; imposing an administrative fine of $250 for Count I; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 and placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years for Count IV; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for Count VI; requiring restitution in the amount of $15,000.00 to John and Christine Shields2/ in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(5); and imposing costs in the amount of $288.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), and Subsections 489.129(1)(n) and (o), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Frazier was licensed by the Department as a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC CO56955 as Ronald Lee Frazier, d/b/a Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak. On or about November 24, 1995, Frazier, contracted with Victor and Janie Anderson to remove and replace the roof of the Anderson's home at 433 111th Street, Marathon, Florida, for $4,657.25. The Andersons paid the full contract price to Frazier in two increments. On or about November 24, 1995, they paid $2,328.62, and on or about January 25, 1996, they paid $2,328.63. In January 1996, Frazier removed and replaced the Anderson's roof, but Frazier applied the new roofing material without first installing a base sheet or moisture barrier. No evidence was presented on the specific manufacturer's specification for the product installed by Frazier; however, the evidence did establish that typical manufacturers' specifications for products such as urethane require the installation of a base sheet before such products are applied. The Monroe County Building Code does require that self-adhesive roofs such as the one installed by Frazier must have a one ply ASTM D226 type II anchor sheet with a four-inch headlap. In other words, the roof should have a base sheet of 30-pound felt before the urethane is applied. The base sheet or moisture barrier helps keep water off the roof, and it also facilitates removal and replacement of the roof. Failure to install the base sheet contributed to the development of roof leaks which the Andersons began noticing approximately 17 months after the work was done, a much shorter time than the normal life expectancy for the urethane roof materials that Frazier used. Frazier's failure to install a base sheet on the Andersons' roof constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. The only way to correct Frazier's work on the Anderson's roof is to remove the roof installed by Frazier and install a new roof in a proper manner. The Andersons began noticing leaks in the roof in June 1997. They notified Frazier by telephone and by letters. Frazier and his employees inspected the Anderson's roof and agreed to perform work to stop the leaks. In September 1997, Frazier went to the Anderson's home and began attempting to work on the roof. Monroe County roofing inspector Al Forrest met with Frazier that day at the Anderson's home and discussed the work that needed to be done. Frazier agreed to correct the deficiencies in the roof; however, Frazier left that day without completing the work and never returned to perform further work. On or about December 1, 1995, Vivian Haverly contracted with Frazier to repair the leaky roof on her home at 1711 Avalon Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Frazier was to install a new urethane roof on Ms. Haverly's house. Among other things, the contract called for Frazier to "raise the A/C unit on stand as per code." The contract price was $5,039.00. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. Haverly paid Frazier $1,039.00 on December 1, 1995, and $3,900 on January 19, 1996. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) has been adopted as the building code by all counties in Florida except for Dade and Broward Counties. Section 1509.1.2 of the SBCCI provides that "[r]oof coverings shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof." Frazier's crew worked on Ms. Haverly's roof but never fixed the leaks. The leaks worsened, causing damage in the interior of Ms. Haverly's house. Frazier failed to raise the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment and sprayed urethane on the air conditioning unit, damaging it to the point that the air conditioner became inoperable and had to be replaced at a cost of $2,700. Frazier did not spray urethane on the portion of the roof below the air conditioning unit as he should have done. Ms. Haverly had to have another company repair her roof. On or about April 18, 1997, John Ward entered into a contract with Frazier as Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak to repair the roof of a two-story building in Marathon, Florida, owned by Virginia Ward and managed for her by her son John Ward. Frazier was to apply a urethane coating to the roof and fix roof leaks for $4,200. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 in the amount of $1,219.18. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case No. 99-3573 in the amount of $244.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did not violate Subsections 489.119(2) and 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 98-5212; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), as set forth in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 and Count II of Case No. 99-3573; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count II of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; suspending Ronald Lee Frazier's license for six months; assessing costs of $1,463.83 for investigation and prosecution in Case Nos. 98-5213, 99-2186, and 99-3573; and taking no action to enforce or collect payment of the fines or assessed costs without authorization of the bankruptcy court unless Ronald Lee Frazier's bankruptcy petition is dismissed or discharged. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland 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 30th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Ronald Lee Frazier Post Office Box 12735 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34979-2735 Ronald Lee Frazier 1006 Southwest Sultan Drive Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The issues are based upon an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Phillip E. Sheffield, Respondent. In particular, Respondent is said to have violated the building code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida by failing to obtain a building permit before commencing construction work related to a roofing project and building the roof to a slope that was contrary to that local building code. For violations of the City of Jacksonville building code, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willful or deliberate violation and disregard for the applicable building code of the municipality. Finally, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes by failing to subcontract roofing work.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0034888. He owns and qualifies Allstate Building Contractors, Inc. Respondent submitted a bid to the City of Miami for renovation and roofing work on a 50-year-old home owned by Margaret Donlevy pursuant to the city's neighborhood rehabilitation program. The Rehabilitation Specifications upon which Respondent bid were written by Roger Rojas, a rehabilitation estimator for the city. The portion of the Specifications pertaining to the roofing work reads only as follows: Remove existing roof covering and replace damaged sheeting and rafters. Apply one 30 No. layer of felt, tin-tacked and then apply two layers of 15 No. felt moppedon. Flood coat and apply gravel (check roof decking (Allow $1.05 per foot) replacing dot decking. Respondent was awarded the Donlevy job. On October 17, 1980, Respondent and Donlevy entered into the one-page form contract being utilized by the city for its rehabilitation projects. The city's Agreement for Rehabilitation contains a date, the names of the contractor and the property owner, the price of the contract, and the deadline by which the work must be done. The Agreement contains no information regarding the work to be performed or the location of the job site. Rather, the Agreement recites the names of various documents, recites that those documents are the contract documents, and incorporates those documents by reference. Only the Agreement for Rehabilitation, the Specifications, and the Proceed Order were offered in evidence. On October 17, 1980, the City of Miami issued its Proceed Order authorizing Respondent to commence work on the Donlevy residence no later than October 20, 1980, which work was required to be completed within 24 calendar days after starting construction. On October 21, 1980, Rojas issued a Change Order on the Donlevy residence which contained the following Description of Work Change: Replace rotted and deteriorated [sic] roof decking and rafters. 2. Upgrade entire electrical system. Install 3 duplex outlets in kitchen area. Move meter to outside of residence. Rojas's authorization to approve the Change Order came from James W. Wager, the senior rehabilitation estimator for the Department of Community Development of the City of Miami. On October 22, 1980, Respondent signed a Contractor's Final Invoice, Release of Liens, and Warranty which recited, inter alia, ". . .that the roof work performed is guaranteed for a period of five (5) years for both workmanship and materials. The undersigned will replace faulty materials or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge." On October 24, 1980, Respondent issued a separate "Roof Guarantee" to Donlevy which provided as follows: The Company guarantees its material and workmanship for five (5) years. It will replace faulty material or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge. On October 28, 1980, the City of Miami issued its check to Allstate Builders in full payment of the Donlevy contract. In performing the roofing work on the Don levy residence, Respondent took off all the existing roof covering, down to the bare deck; repaired all the rotten rafters on the top part of the roof truss that were visible; installed a new roof covering, applying one layer of felt and putting on two layers of 15 No. felt; installed flashing with 90 No. slate, and then laid gravel. Both Rojas and Wager made frequent inspections during the time that Respondent was working on the Donlevy residence, Rojas because it was a job for which he had been assigned responsibility, and Wager because the Donlevy rehabilitation project was one of the first performed pursuant to the rehabilitation program of which Wager was in charge. Respondent successfully completed all interim inspections and the final inspection on the roofing work performed by him. Several months after completion of the roofing work on the Donlevy residence, Respondent was advised that there was a leak over the carport area. He immediately responded and repaired that leak. While at the Donlevy residence, he noticed an abundance of leaves on the roof, apparently attributable to a large tree next to the house. He personally removed the leaves. He advised Rojas and Wager that the tree should be removed, since it created a potential for clogging the drain on the roof. He was advised there was no grant money for tree removal. Wager described the roof on the Donlevy residence as being a strange roof. Although the roof was flat, it was not an average roof. Only one drain was located on the entire roof--a rectangular hole approximately four inches by three inches with a Philadelphia-type gutter. That drain system appeared to have been installed with the roof when the house was originally built, and Respondent's job specifications did not include any changes to the drain system. In September 1981, a portion of the roof caved in. Although Respondent suggested an immediate inspection, the City of Miami employees desired to wait a few days. On October 1, 1981, Respondent, Rojas and Wager met at the Donlevy residence and inspected the roof. Wager took the position that all repairs necessitated by the cave-in were covered by Respondent's warranty, and Respondent took the position that the cave-in was caused by a collapse of the roof system and was not related to any work performed by him. After heated discussion, Wager ordered Respondent off the property. On the following day, Wager caused to be hand-delivered to Respondent a letter advising Respondent that a replacement contractor had been engaged and that Respondent was to make no attempt to correct the damage to the Donlevy residence. Between the time Respondent commenced working on the Donlevy roof in October 1980 and the time the cave-in occurred in September 1981, no citation was issued to Respondent for any defects in workmanship or materials, and no written complaints concerning any such defects were ever made. The only verbal complaint concerned the leak in the carport area, which Respondent immediately repaired. No leak occurred again at that site. The cave-in was caused by the collapse of deteriorated wood, the weight of pooling water, and the size of the single drain (which probably became blocked by leaves). Respondent's contract with Donlevy as the Specifications were written by Rojas did not include putting in a new roof system, and Respondent did not replace the roof system in the Donlevy residence. Respondent's warranty would not cover work not contracted for and not done by him. Petitioner's witnesses admitted that Respondent did not replace the roof system in the Donlevy house and further admitted that even with the roof covering cleared off, all the rafters (the component which collapsed) could not be seen in order to ascertain their condition. The contractor who replaced Respondent received a Proceed Order from the City of Miami on October 2, 1981. Pursuant to instructions from the city, that contractor replaced the entire roof system and further installed a bigger drain.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
