Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Arnold J. Pergament, an employee of Petitioner for almost 20 years, has been inspecting rooming houses licensed by Petitioner in Belle Glade for almost all of that time. For many years, he has inspected Rader's Rooming House at 657 Southwest Avenue E in Belle Glade, which consists of two buildings owned by Respondent, to whom Petitioner has issued license No. 60-00737H, covering the premises. A two-storied stucco-on-wood building contains six to eight separately rented rooms and a frame building with a single story is divided into about a dozen units. Their exterior walls are weather-beaten and deteriorated; there is evidence of wood rot. On August 13, 1980, Mr. Pergament, in conducting a routine inspection, found only two fire extinguishers, not the three he testified were required for Respondent's premises. There was no fire extinguisher on the ground floor of the stucco-on-wood building. There were no light bulbs in at least some of the public bathrooms; in all, there were four bathrooms, one per building for each sex. The bathrooms needed cleaning and some had torn or missing screens. Trash and garbage had accumulated under the buildings and on the grounds. A stair railing consisted of a pipe supported by dangerously infrequent uprights. All these items and more Mr. Pergament noted on a public lodging inspection record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. After marking it to indicate that it was a warning, he personally delivered a carbon copy of the inspection record to Respondent at his office. On the form, Respondent was advised that minor violations in the operation of his establishment were to be corrected by October 13, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Pergament returned to Rader's Rooming House on October 15, 1980 to find trash and garbage, including broken glass, on the grounds and under the buildings, an unaltered stair railing, and no fire extinguisher on the ground floor of the stucco building. In the bathroom, light bulbs were missing, windows were broken, screens were torn and missing; and no hot water was available in the sinks or showers. He noted these matters in a contemporaneous reinspection report, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, a copy of which was mailed to Respondent. On November 25, 1980, Mr. Pergament returned and reinspected. A hall was being painted but the matters specified in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 were substantially unchanged. On the morning of the final hearing, Mr. Pergament and James R. Gallagher inspected Rader's Rooming House and found a new stair railing that Mr. Pergament testified was satisfactory. A third fire extinguisher had been installed. Although it lacked an "approved" tag, it had a tag with a date on it. There was hot water. Fluorescent light bulbs in the bathroom were missing and bathroom windows were broken. The ground were littered with trash of apparently recent origin. Johnny Marchane Lewis is one of four men who regularly work for respondent, who owns other rental property in addition to Rader's Rooming House. Mr. Lewis replaced some windows and screens last summer at Rader's Rooming House, again two months later, and again in March of 1981. The week before the final hearing, he discovered a missing screen, which he replaced, but no other problems with screens or broken windows. On the Saturday before the final hearing, Tommy Lee Williams, another of Respondent's employees, cleared the grounds at Rader's Rooming House, but he testified that garbage might still remain under the buildings. Five months previously, Respondent's men had cleared under the buildings. Somebody rakes "the yard" every other day. Mr. Williams fixed the hot water heater twice, once by replacing the heating element and once by replacing a switch. Although he does not live there, Mr. Williams visits Rader's Rooming House more than once a week. Mr. Pergament testified that he had never had a problem with Respondent's trying to make repairs to any of his properties, and Respondent testified that he tried to make all repairs promptly and would have been more prompt about seeing to the stair railing, except that he misunderstood which railing was meant in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As Respondent conceded, there was no reasonable basis for his misunderstanding, but he did take steps to remedy the situation when he understood the problem.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner impose a fine against Respondent in the amount of $100.00. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Milton Rader Rader's Rooming House 657 Southwest Avenue E Belle Glade, FL 33430 Norman J. Hayes 538 State Office Building 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue Miami, FL 33136 Lewis Reif Robert Hayes Gore Building Room 104 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ROBERT T. BENTON, II, 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 12th day of May, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charlie S. Hiers is registered as a Class B air conditioning contractor and qualifier for Hiers Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Orlando, Florida. As of July 1, 1979, his license became delinquent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In December, 1981, Myrtle D. Harris, who resided at 7505 Ranchero Street, Orlando, engaged the services of Respondent to repair the air conditioning unit at her home. He had performed satisfactory air conditioning work for her on two prior occasions in 1979 and 1980. She had originally contacted him through an ad in the telephone directory under the name "Temp Control Service." On each occasion she had given him a check payable to Temp Control Services which was later endorsed in that name by Respondent. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Respondent advised Mrs. Harris on December 2, 1981, that the compressor of her air conditioning unit needed to be replaced with a new compressor. She thereupon gave him a check in the amount of $546.00 and he provided her with a bill marked paid in that amount. Her chock, dated December 2, 1981, was made payable to Charlie Hiers, and his bill of the same date merely had his handwritten name at the top. Mrs. Harris later added the words "Temp Control" in the payee portion of the check after it had been endorsed by Respondent and returned after payment. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Respondent proceeded to remove the old compressor and later came by Mrs. Harris' house and told her that he had had to order a replacement part. However, he never came back to her home or performed the work for which he had been paid. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach Respondent by leaving her telephone number at his answering service but received no reply. Later, sometime in January, Respondent telephoned her and stated that he had the compressor on his truck and would install it on a specified date. However, he never fulfilled his promise. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach him on subsequent occasions by telephone, but was unable to contact him. On February 1, 1982, Mrs. Harris had her nephew write a letter to Respondent requesting that he either perform the work or return the payment of $546.00. Several months later, after not having heard from the Respondent, Mrs. Harris purchased a new air-conditioner. Respondent has taken no action to perform his agreement or to return the amount which he was paid. (Testimony of Harris)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's motel license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a motel license, number 2200031. The motel is located at 4140 West Highway 90, Lake City, Florida. On June 9, 2003, and on June 16, 2003, a division inspector inspected the Respondent's motel premises and specifically inspected room 207. The inspector noted five alleged deficiencies on June 9, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the inspector noted that three of the five alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected, while two of the alleged deficiencies were corrected during the June 16, 2003, re-inspection. The three uncorrected alleged deficiencies consisted of exposed insulation around the air conditioning unit in room 207, food buildup present in the microwave in room 207, and heavy lint buildup present in the lint filter of the motel's commercial clothes dryer. The two alleged deficiencies corrected during the re-inspection were the use of an electrical extension cord and an unsecured electrical outlet cover. Room number 207 was available for rent and was rented to the public by the Respondent on May 31, 2003, and again on June 19, 2003. During the interim time and at the time of these inspections, the room was not rented because it was undergoing repairs. During this time, the room was being used primarily as a handyman workroom for ongoing repairs. Part of the repairs being done to room 207 was to replace the permanent air conditioning unit in that room. Because the air conditioning unit did not work, Respondent had temporarily installed a window air conditioning unit. The window air conditioning unit did not fit the window it was in, therefore, Respondent had placed insulation around the unit. The insulation was exposed. The insulation was not a furnishing supplied with the room but was a temporary part of the building’s window/wall system intended as a prelude to replacing the air conditioning unit. Since the insulation was not a furnishing, its exposure did not violate Rule 61C-3.001(5) that addresses the cleanliness of room furnishings such as drapes. An extension cord was being used to power the window air conditioning unit in room 207. Even though Respondent unhooked the extension cord during the re-inspection, the use of the extension cord to power the air conditioning unit was a fire hazard and violates Chapter 509. Additionally, one of the electrical outlet cover plates was attached, but was loose. However, it did function as a barrier. There was no evidence regarding the space requirements for an electrical outlet or how the outlet cover impacts that space other than as a barrier. The evidence did not show that a loose outlet cover violates NFPA 70,110.32 that deals with the space requirements around electrical equipment. Finally, the microwave in room 207 had old food buildup on its walls. The microwave is a furnishing and is required to be kept clean. Such food buildup does not meet the cleanliness requirements of Rule 61C-3.001(5). Outside of room 207, the inspector personally observed the lint buildup in the dryer. Petitioner does require that the dryer’s lint trap be cleaned once a day. However, either the trap had not been cleaned or the dryer had received heavier use on the days of the inspection. The lint is a flammable material and the dryer trap must be kept free of such flammables. The accumulation of the lint was a fire hazard and is a violation of Rule 61C-1.004(7).
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty for violating Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kana Baleswaran, pro se Piney Woods Lodge 4140 West Highway 90 Lake City, Florida 32055 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues are (1) whether engaging in air conditioning contracting regulated by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board pursuant to Section 489.500 et seq. Part II, Florida Statutes, constitutes exceeding the scope of one's license as an electrical contractor, (2) whether performing air conditioning contracting in the name of "Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning" constitutes operating in a name other than the name his electrical contracting license is issued in, contrary to Subsection 489.533(1)(l), and (3) whether Respondent willfully violated the building codes by venting the heater improperly, failing to get a permit and get work inspected.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing was given to Respondent at Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. Arnold Dixon is and has been at all times material to this case a registered electrical contractor, license number ER0004417. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) He has maintained his address of record as Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. (T-Pg. 6) He has held such license since 1976. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) Arnold Dixon does not hold a license, a state registration or certification to engage in contracting as a heating or air conditioning contractor. (Pet. Ex. 4 & 6) Arnold Dixon does hold a Nassau County Occupational License as an electrical contractor and as a heating and air conditioning contractor. No check of local records was conducted to see if he had a local license as an air conditioning contractor. (T-Pg. 22) On or about June 1985, the Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, contracted to install an air conditioning and heating unit at the home of John Williams for a contract price of $1985. (Pet. Ex. 5 and T-Pgs. 10 & 11) The work on this contract was done by David Everett, who negotiated the contract. The Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, did not obtain a permit to perform the work at the Williams' residence. Inspections on the Williams' job were not called for by Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning. Permits and inspections were required by the applicable building code. (T-Pgs. 25 & 26) Entering into a contract to perform air conditioning and heating work and performing such work is air conditioning contracting, which is regulated under Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. After installation by Dixon's Hearing and Air Conditioning, the Williams' heating system generated carbon monoxide when operating because there was insufficient fresh air being provided to the unit. Because the air intake was in a closet which restricted the air supply to the hot air handling system, the air handling unit sucked fumes from the exhaust side of the unit back through the unit's combustion chamber and circulated it through the house. The longer the unit ran, the more debris was trapped in the louvered door of the closet and the more combustion gases were pulled through the combustion chamber and distributed through the house by the air handling unit. (T-Pg. 34) According to the manufacturer's representative, the hot air return is required to be ducted into the unit. In this case, the return air was pulled from inside a closet which had louvered doors. No duct was used and this installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Although the unit as installed was unsafe and had the potential to kill, no evidence was received that failure to install the unit in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was a violation of local building code. (T-Pgs. 34- 38) Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did not hold itself out to be and was not engaged in electrical contracting in fulfilling the Williams' contract. Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did hold itself out to be an air conditioning contractor and the work performed in fulfilling the Williams' contract was air conditioning contracting.
Findings Of Fact Randall Labadie owns the corporation, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, a business engaged in interior cleaning and air duct cleaning, with a principal office located at 1599 SW 30th Avenue, Suite 11, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. Randall Labadie has owned the business in Florida for ten years and has been personally involved in air duct cleaning for approximately 20 years. He holds a State of Florida building contractor's license, but not a sheet metal, air conditioning or mechanical contractor's license. Approximately fifty percent of the company's business is air duct cleaning, with thousands of jobs having been completed over its years of operation. Respondent, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) is responsible for regulating various professions in the construction industry pursuant to Chapter 489, F.S. On August 8, 1984, CILB Administrative Assistant, Milton Rubin, issued this written opinion in response to an inquiry from the executive director of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board: In response to your inquiry for an opinion on the following questions, the answer is in the affirmative: Does a person or firm performing "cleaning" services for air conditioning systems have to be licensed? Yes. If, in the process of "cleaning", a person or firm cuts access openings in existing duct work, does that person or firm require competency licensure? Yes. Does "servicing" in 489.105(h) include cleaning? Yes. (Exhibit #2) * * * The Board did not adopt a rule reflecting its official position on the matter because it felt that the interpretation would have been an unnecessary restatement of the language of Chapter 489, F.S. (Stipulation of the parties filed 11/20/92) On March 13, 1992, the CILB took this official action as reflected in its General Session Minutes: There was a presentation by Mr. Dean Ellis and Jim Hasbrook of Pinellas County regarding a request from two industries. The two industry associations include The Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association and the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association. The issue concerns duct cleaning and air conditioning system cleaning. This Board had previously taken a position in August of 1984 that this work must be performed by a licensed contractor in one of three categories: air conditioning, mechanical, or sheet metal. At that time the opinion was rendered by Mr. Rubin but included a disclaimer stating that it did not reflect the official position of the Board. These associations now request a formal position from the Board stating that the licensed contractor must perform this work as stated in Mr. Rubin's letter of 1984. Mr. Lopez-Cantera made motion to ratify that position as a policy of the Board. Second by Mr. Manrique. Motion carried. (Exhibit #1) After the Board action was taken, various industry organizations sent notices of the Board's position to their members. The Florida Air Conditioning Contractor's Association "...urge[d] all parties concerned to act on the FCILB decision... [and to] ...report any unlicensed activity through the proper channels." (Exhibit #4) Steamatic, Inc., is engaged in the business of franchising cleaning operations, and has a home office in Fort Worth, Texas. Around 1975, it expanded from fire and water restoration cleaning into other cleaning services, more specifically, air duct cleaning or air conditioning system cleaning. Steamatic, Inc., has approximately 144 franchises in the United States, including 14 in the State of Florida. Prior to March 13, 1992, no Florida franchise was cited for engaging in cleaning activity without a license under Chapter 489, F.S. Since March 1992, at least two franchises, in Jacksonville and in Bradenton, have received notices from Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigators that complaints have been filed alleging unlicensed practice of air conditioning contracting. The CILB policy formally adopted in March 1992, has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S. The CILB has not adopted rules setting acceptable standards for air duct cleaning, and at the March 13, 1992, Board meeting, Board member, Cosmo Tornese stated that there are no accepted standards regarding air duct cleaning. As of March 13, 1992, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) had not adopted standards. The duct cleaning activity conducted by Petitioner and other Steamatic franchisees is nonstructural work only. These companies do not "repair", "maintain", or "adjust" air conditioning systems. They generally obtain access to the ducts through existing openings or the registers, and they vacuum what is accessible. With a low-pressure atomizing gun they apply a germicide treatment and a sealer. In about ten percent of the cases they might cut an opening in the duct in the fogging process and they close it with duct tape. They do not cut sheet metal or disconnect the duct work from the air handler. They do not clean the coils on condensing units or fan blades in the air handler. They only cut fiber duct board, never flex duct. They do not disengage electrical connections. They do residential work only. In contrast, and for more money (base price of $595.00, as opposed to $250-300.00 charged by Steamatic), Dean Ellis' company, Climate Control Services, offers what he prefers to call "air duct sanitizing". (transcript p. 74) Dean Ellis has a Florida class A unlimited air conditioning license. He cleans the air handler coil, evaporator coil, drain pan and interior of cabinets. The components are removed and are chemically cleaned and sprayed. His workers take out the electric heat strips and fan motor. They inspect the ducts and replace duct work that is severely contaminated. They use an air source removal machine that is connected through a large hole cut in the box that fits above the air handler and suctions the entire duct system. They check and adjust freon levels and fan speeds. About five percent of Dean Ellis' business is related to the cleaning of air ducts. He considers his company is in a competitor's relationship with Steamatic. The association of which he is a board member, Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association, brought its concerns to the CILB and wanted to know if the Board would enforce what the association already considered the law to be. Petitioner, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, is substantially affected by the CILB's response to its regulated industry representatives. (See prehearing stipulation, filed 11/20/92)
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees and, if so, the amount of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent installs and maintains air conditioning and heating equipment for residential and commercial applications. On May 2, 2017, Respondent was installing a duct system at 3128 East Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Two of Respondent's employees were performing work at the site and were not covered by workers' compensation. Leslie Michaud is the president and sole shareholder of Respondent. The air conditioning installation work performed by Respondent's employees is classified by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) as class code 5537. This code is for "Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Systems Installation, Service and Repair . . . ." During the audit period of May 3, 2015, through May 2, 2017 (Audit Period), code 5537 bore two rates. For the Audit Period, Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage for any of its employees, although it maintained an exemption for Mr. Michaud. For the Audit Period, Respondent's gross payroll was $213,327.49 exclusive of any payments to Mr. Michaud. Applying the manual rates during the Audit Period to the gross payroll yields unpaid workers' compensation premium of $14,870.43.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the Audit Period and imposing a penalty of $29,740.86. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of January, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire Steven R. Hart Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Leslie G. Michaud L and M Airconditioning System, Inc. 49 North Federal Highway, No. 206 Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
