The Issue Whether Respondent’s use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners’ home, and, if so, the amount of damages to which Petitioners are entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Petitioners are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Petitioners have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. Respondent engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, Respondent utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent’s Blasting Activities The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Petitioners’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Petitioners’ home. Each of the sections have been utilized as a discrete location where blasting activities occur in order for Respondent to obtain construction materials. Section 7 was in operation from the mid-1990s through the end of 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 7. Section 6 was in operation from 2000 through 2015. Currently, no blasting activities occur in section 6. Section 4/5 began blasting operations in the first quarter of 2015 and halted in the fourth quarter while excavation was done. Blasting in section 4/5 resumed in January 2016. To monitor the impact of its blasting activities, Respondent utilizes the firm GeoSonics, Inc. (“GeoSonics”). GeoSonics has performed vibration measurement, evaluation, and reporting to Respondent since 1986. Jeffrey A. Straw is a seismologist with 39 years of experience and is employed by GeoSonics. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw is responsible for monitoring the impacts of vibration from Respondent’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. GeoSonics placed seismographs to monitor the impact of Respondent’s blasting activities. Peak particle velocity (“PPV”) is the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground. The seismographs are used to determine if Respondent’s blasting activities are within the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. The seismographs must be located within one mile of each blast location to record the PPV resulting from the blasting activities. The seismographs are monitored and evaluated to ensure that their readings are accurate. The seismograph readings are evaluated by GeoSonics, which provides reports on the readings to Respondent and to the state fire marshall. Each seismograph undergoes testing to ensure that the instrument is working properly and providing effective and accurate readings. Every time a seismograph provides a reading concerning a blast, it sends a calibration pulse, which indicates whether the seismograph is working properly. Each seismograph instrument has an accompanying certification demonstrating that the instrument has successfully undergone testing and is working in accordance with the industry standards and specifications. There are six seismographs located within the vicinity of Petitioners’ home. The further the distance from the blasting location, the lower the blasting intensity. Each seismograph is located closer to the blasting location than Petitioners’ home. Thus, the PPV measured by the seismographs are greater than what the blasting intensity would be at Petitioners’ home. At no time have any of Respondent’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the 0.5 PPV limit. Petitioners Failed to Prove that Respondent’s Blasting Activities Caused Damages to Their Home In the instant case, Petitioners assert that Respondent’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Petitioners’ alleged damages center on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is clear that cracks exist in Petitioners’ home. However, the issue to be determined in this case is whether the cracks were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. They were not. In support of Petitioners’ position, Mrs. Alfaro presented at hearing a home inspection report. The inspection was conducted on April 18, 2016, and was not performed by a general contractor or structural engineer. Although the inspector identified various cracks based on his visual observations, the inspector specifically excluded any opinion regarding the cause of any need for repairs. Petitioners were specifically advised to obtain an opinion from a general contractor or structural engineer as to the cause of the damages. Mrs. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. Mrs. Alfaro’s testimony at hearing regarding the purported cause of the cracks is not credited and is unpersuasive. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Barbara Hagan. Ms. Hagan resides in Country Club, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is retired. She serves as the president of a civic association and secretary and treasurer of her homeowner’s association. She is not a general contractor, engineer, or seismologist. She has no experience in the use of explosives. She has never visited Petitioners’ home. At hearing, Ms. Hagan conceded that she has no opinion regarding the cause of any of the damages in Petitioners’ home. Mrs. Alfaro also presented the testimony of Paul Ingelmo. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Petitioners’ residence. Mr. Ingelmo did not review or analyze PPV data relevant to the blasts complained of by Petitioners. Mr. Ingelmo has no training or experience as to the appropriate threshold with respect to blasting activities and PPV. He is not familiar with how a wave behaves from a blast versus a seismic event. Mr. Ingelmo is not familiar with how PPV is measured or calculated. Importantly, Mr. Ingelmo could not give an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In fact, Mr. Ingelmo conceded that the damages could have been caused by any number of unspecified factors. Finally, Mrs. Alfaro presented the testimony of Ismailia Rashid. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Ms. Rashid visited Petitioners’ home, conducted a visual inspection, and observed cracks on the patio, interior floors, and driveway. Ms. Rashid is not familiar with PPV or ground vibration. She has never been in a home where she was present and there was blasting. Importantly, Ms. Rashid did not offer an opinion on whether the damages to Petitioners’ home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In sum, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that the damages to Petitioners’ home were not caused by Respondent’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credits and finds persuasive the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses: Jeffrey A. Straw, David L. Teasdale, and Michael Schraeger. Mr. Straw visited Petitioners’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. At those visits, Mr. Straw accompanied Michael Schraeger, a licensed general contractor with Diversified Services, Inc. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Petitioners. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Petitioners’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.1/ Mr. Teasdale is a civil structural engineer with Haag Engineering and serves as vice president of engineering and principal field engineer. Mr. Teasdale’s specialty focuses on the extent of damage to structures due to ground vibrations, explosions, and earthquakes. He is a licensed engineer in the state of Florida and 34 other states and has been a licensed engineer since 1988. He is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. Mr. Teasdale was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at the Petitioners’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale testified that there are substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale explained that the fundamental difference between an earthquake and a quarry blasting is the amount of energy being released by the activity. Quarry blasting is a localized source event. An earthquake involves a fault line, which can extend for many miles and become mobilized. There is a direct correlation between the length of a fault line ripped versus the magnitude of an earthquake. Mr. Teasdale also explained that the measurement for quarry blasting, unlike the Richter Scale used for earthquakes, is a direct measurement; meaning that a PPV of 1.0 is twice the impact of a PPV of 0.5. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. Distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the upper-part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back-and-forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale explained that there was no damage to the foundation of Petitioners’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Petitioners’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Mr. Teasdale testified that at the level in which Respondent has blasted below 0.5 PPV, it is impossible for Respondent’s blasting to have caused damages to Petitioners’ home. Based on his review and analysis of Petitioners’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Petitioners’ home. Mr. Schraeger is a general contractor and building inspector. He is self-employed through his company Diversified Services, Inc., and serves as the owner/operator. Mr. Schraeger has approximately 30 years of experience in commercial and residential construction. He has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Petitioners’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in Petitioners’ home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Petitioners’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. There was no evidence of foundation damage.2/ Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Petitioners’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of Petitioners’ home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Petitioners. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. The crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, White Rock Quarries (“White Rock”), is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondents, Dorothy Brown-Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro (“Respondents” or “Ms. Alfaro”), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and an award of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to be paid by Respondents pursuant to section 552.40(9), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to which White Rock is entitled.
Findings Of Fact White Rock engages in construction materials mining activities in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, White Rock utilizes explosives to procure construction materials (i.e., limestone) from quarries that are located in northwest Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondents reside in a single-family, one-story home located at 14699 Southwest 47th Street, Miramar, Broward County, Florida 33027. Respondents are the third owners of the home, which was built in 1981. Respondents have resided in the home since 1998. The home is approximately 3,000 square feet “under air,” and is composed of concrete block with stucco finishes, a shallow slab-on-grade foundation system, wood-framed interior walls, and ceramic tile flooring. The subject quarries are located within various geographic areas identified by different sections in close proximity to Respondents’ home. Of particular relevance to the instant matter are sections 7, 6, and 4/5. Section 7 is approximately 2.6 or 2.7 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 6 is approximately 2.3 or 2.4 miles from Respondents’ home. Section 4/5 is approximately 1.6 miles from Respondents’ home.1/ In the underlying case, Respondents asserted that White Rock’s quarrying activities caused damages to their home. Respondents alleged damages centered on “cracks” that exist throughout the home--specifically, cracks throughout the tile flooring inside the home; cracks on the cement flooring of the garage; cracks in the interior and exterior walls and ceilings; cracks in the semi-circular, stamp-concrete driveway and patio; and cracks around the surface of the windows. It is undisputed that cracks exist throughout Respondents’ home and that Respondents’ home is damaged because of the cracks. However, the issues to be determined in the underlying proceeding were whether the cracks were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities, and, if so, the amount Respondents should be compensated for the damages. Section 552.40(1) provides, in pertinent part, that: A person may initiate an administrative proceeding to recover damages resulting from the use of explosives in connection with construction mining materials mining activities by filing a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings by electronic means through the division’s website on a form provided by it . . . . Pursuant to section 552.40(2)(c) and (d), the petition must include: The approximate time, date, and place of the use of explosives which is alleged to have resulted in damage to the petitioner; and A description of the damage caused and the amount sought for recovery. On December 14, 2015, Respondents’ former counsel filed an Amended Petition Under the Florida Construction Materials Mining Activities Administrative Recovery Act. In the amended petition prepared and filed by Respondents’ former counsel pursuant to sections 552.40(1) and (2), Respondents claimed they were entitled to the following items of damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities: Floor ($24,000) Foundation ($100,000) Walls ($50,000) Ceiling ($20,000) Patio ($50,000) Driveway ($75,000) Windows ($45,000)2/ The final hearing in the underlying proceeding lasted two days. At that hearing, Respondent Dorothy Brown-Alfaro (who appeared pro se at the final hearing), presented photographs and a home inspection report showing cracks throughout the home. She described new, worsening, and expanding cracks throughout the home resulting from White Rock’s blasting activities. In addition, Ms. Alfaro submitted into evidence a blasting log, which documented the date, time, and intensity of White Rock’s ongoing blasting activities since 1999 Respondents claimed they felt at their home. The blasting log was also an exhibit to Respondents’ amended petition. At the hearing, Ms. Alfaro testified to White Rock’s frequent blasting and the effects on her home from the blasts. According to Ms. Alfaro, when White Rock’s blasting activities occur, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” and “the entire structure of my house moves.” According to Ms. Alfaro, “when it shakes, my ceiling, my roof, my walls, my floor, everything shakes.” She testified that items fall off the shelves and she described the feeling from the blasts as a “vibration similar to an earthquake.” Ms. Alfaro presented the additional testimony of Barbara Hagan, Paul Ingelmo, and Ismailia Rashid. Mr. Ingelmo is a structural engineer who performed a visual inspection of Respondents’ residence. Ms. Rashid is a general and roofing contractor. Neither Mr. Ingelmo, Ms. Rashid, nor Ms. Hagan could opine that the damages to Respondents’ home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Ms. Alfaro is an electrical contractor. She is not a licensed general contractor or structural engineer. At hearing, Ms. Alfaro conceded that she does not have experience as a general contractor or seismologist. She has not had any training in seismology or blasting activities. The undersigned found Ms. Alfaro’s testimony regarding the purported cause of the cracks not to be credited or persuasive. Ms. Alfaro regularly provides construction estimates in her business. Ms. Alfaro testified that the damages she requested in the amended petition were based upon her estimate of the repair costs she would incur to correct the damages caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. She testified, without objection, that she obtained material costs and calculated the amount of materials needed (i.e. per cubic yard of concrete and drywall) and labor to complete the repairs. In response to the evidence presented by Ms. Alfaro at the hearing, White Rock presented the testimony of Jeffrey A. Straw, a seismologist; David L. Teasdale, a civil structural engineer; and Michael Schraeger, a general contractor and building inspector. As a seismologist, Mr. Straw was responsible for monitoring the impacts and vibration from White Rock’s blasting activities and analyzing their effects on structures. At the hearing, he described the concept of peak particle velocity (“PPV”), the speed at which a particle of ground oscillates as the vibration wave moves through the ground following a blast. Mr. Straw testified that according to seismographs located within the vicinity of Respondents’ home, at no time have any of White Rock’s blasting activities reached or exceeded the PPV limit of 0.5 inch per second established by the state of Florida. Mr. Straw also visited Respondents’ home twice: in April 2006 and January 2016. On both occasions, Mr. Straw brought a camera and notepad with him to catalog the defects identified by Respondents. Mr. Straw took extensive and comprehensive photographs detailing the cracks throughout Respondents’ home and driveway. Mr. Straw also testified that 90 percent of the alleged defects he observed in 2016 were items that he also observed in some format in 2006.3/ While at Respondents’ home in January 2016, Mr. Straw experienced the effects of a blast. He described it as “[r]elatively minor based on blasts that I felt,” and indicated the blast lasted about three to five seconds at most. However, Mr. Straw further testified that he could feel the impact of the blast under his feet, and he could hear it, “there was some general vibration of the structure,” and some “dish rattling.” Mr. Teasdale is extensively familiar with seismographs and has extensive experience installing and using them. At the hearing, he was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in structural behavior from ground motion and normal service loads, the influence of construction practices and environmental conditions on building features, soils and hardscape, the causes and conditions documented at Respondents’ residence, and lot features including the suitability of existing safe blasting standards in the state of Florida. Mr. Teasdale explained the substantial differences between an earthquake and quarry blasting. Mr. Teasdale testified that for blasting to cause damage to a structure, distortion must occur. According to Mr. Teasdale, distortion occurs where the foundation of a structure is accelerated laterally and causes the under part of the building to lag in response, which causes the building to shift back and forth and mimic a parallelogram shape. He explained that when distortion occurs, cracks will emanate from the corner of the walls and that those cracks will be mirrored on the opposite walls (inside and outside the structure). Mr. Teasdale testified there was no damage to the foundation of Respondents’ home, and the foundation and floor of a home would not experience distortion at 0.5 PPV or below because those limits are too low to produce the energy necessary to cause a structure to become mobilized. According to Mr. Teasdale, Respondents’ home exhibited a variety of horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in the finishes, which are typical of environmental stresses in those materials. Mr. Teasdale also testified that distortion causes diagonal cracks, while thermal environmental stresses cause cracks vertically and horizontally. He explained that cracks caused by environmental conditions do not correlate on the inside and outside, while cracks caused by distortion do correlate on the inside and outside. He emphasized that the absence of corresponding cracks on the inside and outside of the structure generally precludes blasting as the cause of damages. Mr. Teasdale explained that from the moment the concrete is cast, it begins to shrink and develop cracks. Mr. Teasdale further explained that stucco, which is essentially the same material as concrete, is also prone to cracks due to normal environmental conditions. Based on his review and analysis of Respondents’ home, Mr. Teasdale concluded that he would exclude blasting to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as the cause of damages to Respondents’ home. Mr. Schraeger has been licensed as a general contractor for 22 years and specializes in repairs, remodeling, and renovations of commercial and residential structures. He has 20 years of experience performing inspections of buildings relating to determination of material, construction failure, and defects. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger was accepted by the undersigned as an expert in construction practices and environmental effects on materials and structures. Mr. Schraeger inspected Respondents’ home in 2006 and 2016. He testified that 90 to 95 percent of the alleged defects he observed in the home in 2016 existed when he inspected the home in 2006. Mr. Schraeger testified that the cracks that he observed on the tile floor inside Respondents’ home are very typical in a South Florida home because concrete typically cracks within all concrete structures. These types of cracks can be caused by poor installation of the tile or shrinkage of the monolithic slab over time. He opined there was no evidence of foundation damage. Mr. Schraeger further testified that in his professional opinion, some of the cracks in Respondents’ home are the result of poor construction practices. For example, he explained that most of the cracks in the interior of the home are due to poor construction practices because of the use of an inappropriate method for finishing the joints in the drywall. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger observed tape on some of the joints, which either had no joint compound under them, or the tape was applied after the compound started to dry, causing a bond failure. Some of the cracks generating from the corners of openings appeared to be from improperly secured corner bead. During his 2016 inspection, Mr. Schraeger also observed a crack in the master bedroom approximately eight feet in length, which appeared to be a joint in the drywall. This was apparent to Mr. Schraeger because the crack was visible on both sides of the joint tape, which had failed. According to Mr. Schraeger, the cause of this failure was moisture from a roof leak. Staining due to moisture on the ceiling in the area and a repair of the roof above this area indicated a previous leak. Notably, other areas of the home indicated roof leaks, including stains on the ceiling of the office area and staining around the skylight in the hallway. Mr. Schraeger further testified that the patio tile and driveway lack sufficient control joints, thereby making the stamped-concrete driveway and patio prone to crack. Mr. Schraeger also identified issues of poor maintenance by Respondents. For example, he noted that the caulking around the windows was brittle and almost nonexistent. At the hearing, Mrs. Alfaro acknowledged that in the 17 years she has owned the home, the windows have never been re-caulked. According to Mr. Schraeger, several cracks were observed on the stucco exterior walls of the home. With the exception of a severe crack on the wing wall on the rear of the patio, he opined that all of the cracks in the exterior walls of the home were attributed to common aesthetic cracks caused by the lack of control joints, dissimilar materials, bond failure, and improper maintenance. According to Mr. Schraeger, the crack on the wing wall of the patio, which ran along the bottom of a large tie beam, was attributable to poor construction methods. At the hearing, Mr. Schraeger disputed Ms. Alfaro’s cost of repair testimony. However, Mr. Schraeger was not asked to give an expert opinion regarding the amount of damages, and he provided only “ballpark” or “rough” estimates of the cost of repair. For example, Mr. Schraeger testified that the cost to repair the flooring would be “approximately $11,000.”4/ As to the foundation, he estimated the cost to be $0.00 because he found no damage. As to the walls, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $16,000. As to the ceiling, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure of $5,000. As to the patio, Mr. Schraeger estimated a figure “well within the high end of six thousand.” As to the driveway, Mr. Schraeger estimated a range between “roughly” $17,000 and $20,000--the high end of the range resulting from “material fluctuation” construction costs. As to the windows, Mr. Schraeger estimated $12,000. Clearly, Mr. Schraeger acknowledged there are actual damages throughout much of the home, and there are actual costs associated with the repair of the damages. That the parties disagreed as to the amount of damages as to each item of alleged damages does not mean that the amount of damages claimed was unsupported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim. In sum, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the undersigned found that Respondents failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages to their home were caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing established that the damages to Respondents’ home were not caused by White Rock’s blasting activities. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned credited and found persuasive the testimony of Mr. Straw, Mr. Teasdale, and Mr. Schraeger. Although the undersigned was not persuaded in the underlying case by the evidence presented by Respondents, this does not mean that Respondents’ claims were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims. There was competent, substantial evidence introduced by Respondents at hearing showing that: (1) Respondents’ home was in close proximity to White Rock’s frequent blasting activities; (2) when the blasting occurs, the house “sways,” “everything shakes,” “the entire structure of [the] house moves,” items fall off the shelf, and Ms. Alfaro feels a vibration similar to an earthquake; and (3) there are cracks throughout the home--some of the cracks are new, worsening, and have expanded as a result of White Rock’s frequent blasting activities. White Rock is the prevailing party in Dorothy Brown- Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro v. White Rock Quarries, DOAH Case No. 15-6014CM. However, White Rock has failed to establish it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to sections 57.105 and 552.40(9). On page 16 of its proposed final order, White Rock also claims it is entitled to recover taxable costs under section 552.40(9), totaling $9,287, as the prevailing party in the underlying case. The amount of taxable costs claimed is based on Exhibits 12A through 12G. In Respondents’ Proposed Final Order, Respondents do not dispute that White Rock is entitled to “recover costs totaling $9,287.15 (all the costs claimed except for the cost of lunches totaling $62.65) as costs reasonably necessary to defend the claims asserted in the underlying case.” The undersigned has examined White Rock’s Exhibits 12A through 12G, which constitute the universe of taxable costs sought, and the total of the costs is $9,287. There is no cost of lunches included within Exhibits 12A through 12G. All of the costs identified in Exhibits 12A through 12G are taxable costs or incidental administrative costs directly associated with the case, and therefore, are recoverable under section 552.40.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida at all material times. He held license number CG-C028693. As of May 20, 1988, this license was delinquent for nonrenewal and had been since June, 1987. At all material times while licensed as a certified general contractor, Respondent served as the qualifying agent for Quigley Homes, Inc., which is located in Palm Bay, Florida. In March, 1985, Ronald and Rita McCarty contacted Respondent after seeing a model house that he had constructed in the area. After negotiations, in May, 1985, Respondent, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc., entered into a contract with Mr. McCarty for the construction of a house at a price of $89,900. The contract included several pages of specifications and stated that completion was due within four months of commencement. The parties agreed to a set of blueprints shortly after the contract was executed and thereby satisfied the only contingency to the contract. Shortly thereafter, Respondent began preliminary work, such as ordering windows, site clearing and preparation, and obtaining necessary permits. In October, 1985, Mr. McCarty lost his job and his mortgage application was rejected. Respondent therefore ceased working on the house. At the time, the McCartys had paid Respondent the sum of $4495, which had been spent on start-up expenses. In July, 1986, Respondent resumed construction, under the same contract, shortly after being told that Mr. McCarty had applied for another mortgage after obtaining a new job in January, 1986. In August, 1986, a subcontractor poured the concrete slab for the house. The day prior to the pour, Mr. McCarty discovered that certain plumbing, which had to be in place before the pour, was missing. Unable to reach Respondent, Mr. McCarty himself informed the plumber of the omission. The plumber installed the necessary plumbing before the pour. A day or two prior to the pour, Carrol Smoot, Building Inspector for the Town of Indialantic, had inspected the form and reminded the subcontractor in charge of the pour that J- bolts needed to be added before the pour. J-bolts are anchoring devices around which the concrete is poured. Once the concrete is set, the wall plates are placed under the hook of the J- bolt in order to secure the house to the slab. Notwithstanding Mr. Smoot's reminder, the pour proceeded without the J- bolts in place. The pour had several other problems. A portion of the concrete garage floor was not square because the form had been off by about 4" at the time of the pour. The rear porch floor sloped too steeply toward the house. The slope of the front porch was also too steep. There were various "bird baths" or depressions in the slab. On August 27, 1986, Respondent and the McCartys met with Mr. Smoot at the work site. Following the meeting, Mr. Smoot sent a letter to Respondent dated August 29, 1986, in which Mr. Smoot required Respondent to take certain corrective action. The letter required two probe tests of the concrete in place, the installation of stud wall anchor bolts, the correction of the out-of- square corner, the topping of low spots in the slab with Ardex, and the repair or replacement of the incorrectly sloped rear porch. In September, 1986, two portions of the slab passed by considerable margins separate probe tests designed to test the strength of the concrete. Shortly after the August 27 meeting, Respondent suggested to Mr. Smoot that Hilti nails, rather than anchor bolts, be used to secure the wall plates to the slab. Hilti nails are an acceptable, but less desirable, alternative to J- bolts. However, after the slab is poured, it is much easier to install Hilti nails than J-bolts. Both Mr. Smoot and the McCartys agreed to Respondent's proposal. At the same time, the excess slab at the unsquare corner was cut off and, pursuant to Mr. Smoot's orders, additional concrete was poured and attached to the original slab by means of stainless steel bolts. Respondent offered to apply Ardex to the rear porch in order to level it and improve the concrete's rough finish, which had been caused by rain during the pour. Ardex is a topping material applied to concrete in order to level the surface. Respondent also offered to apply a coat of Kool Deck, such as that found around swimming pools, over the Ardex. The McCartys rejected the Kool Deck, but agreed to the Ardex. When terminated, as discussed below, Respondent had not applied the Ardex; however, he was postponing the work so that the finish would not be marred by later construction work. Respondent removed and replaced the front porch slab. He ground the remaining slab in order to alleviate the unevenness. It is unclear whether Respondent also applied Ardex to other portions of the slab in order to eliminate the depressions. Depressions in slabs are not uncommon and grinding and topping materials are often used to level uneven slabs. Following most if not all of the concrete corrective work, a subcontractor began the framing job. At about this time, shortly after the slab grinding was completed, C. C. Holbrook replaced Respondent as supervisor of the job for Quigley Homes, Inc. Mr. Holbrook was a certified general contractor with 30 years' experience. At the time, Respondent had built only 8- 10 houses and was considerably less experienced than Mr. Holbrook. When Mr. Smoot was called to inspect the framing, he found that the Hilti nails had been driven through the wall plate improperly. Instead of having been staggered on either side of the centerline of the wood plate, each nail had been driven into the center so as to split the plate in places. This problem was later corrected by driving more Hilti nails on either side of the centerline. Similar nailing problems occurred with the roof sheathing and fiberboard. Mr. Smoot required renailing of these items and, when this was done, approved the work. When the framing was about half complete, Mr. McCarty threw the framing subcontractor off the job due to Mr. McCarty's dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship. In specific, he objected to the fact that one or more walls appeared out of plumb. At about the same time, which was late November or early December, 1986, the McCartys announced that they would no longer accept Hilti nails, even though they had already been installed. On December 22, 1986, Mr. Holbrook, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc. wrote a letter to the McCartys in which he stated that the company could not proceed with the construction without written approval from the McCartys of the Hilti nails. Quigley Homes, Inc. discontinued working on the job at about that time. In mid-January, 1987, Respondent's father, who is a certified general contractor with nearly 40 years' experience, met with the McCartys to try to resolve the differences between the parties. Respondent's father, David J. Quigley, Sr., has built over 20,000 residential units. Although unaffiliated with Quigley Homes, Inc., Mr. Quigley, Sr. had lent Mr. Holbrook to his son's company during a relatively inactive period before Mr. Holbrook was needed for a large residential development in which Mr. Quigley, Sr. was involved. At the meeting, Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that all problems would be resolved. Mr. McCarty was unappeased, which led Mr. Quigley, Sr. to ask if Mr. McCarty preferred to have someone else finish the house. Mr. McCarty responded affirmatively. Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that Mr. McCarty should inform Mr. Holbrook in writing of the existing problems so that Quigley Homes, Inc. could take care of them. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. McCarty called Mr. Holbrook to arrange a meeting to discuss the problems. Mr. Holbrook said that Mr. McCarty should mail him a written list instead. The McCartys never sent such a writing to Mr. Holbrook or Quigley Homes, Inc. A final exchange of correspondence took place between the McCartys' attorneys, whose letter was dated January 28, 1987., and Quigley Homes, Inc., whose letter was dated February 5, 1987. In its letter, Quigley Homes, Inc. restated its willingness to finish the job or leave the job and repair the items mentioned in the letter. At the time of the termination of Quigley Homes, Inc. from the McCarty job, Mr. Smoot had approved all stages of construction requiring inspection up to that time. However, numerous deficiencies in workmanship existed for which Respondent was responsible. Nearly all of these items were of a type that would have been corrected as construction proceeded on the house. These items included the uneven rear porch floor to which Respondent had offered to apply Ardex and Kool Deck, numerous window frames at different heights, two out-of- plumb walls, one or two incorrectly sized door openings, and a wavy roof ridge line caused largely by a few trusses that had been unevenly spaced. The repairs necessary to fix these items were minor. The wavy roof ridge line is not unusual, and the out-of-plumb walls had not yet been permanently attached. Additional work was required to correct Respondent's deviation from the plans in using screening rather than aluminum soffits. Also, the tilt of one exterior wall prevented the application of one row of bricks near ground level, although the absence of these bricks is not readily apparent. Two deficiencies were more significant. First, the garage floor was removed and replaced. The floor had suffered cracking and shrinkage. Although this portion of the slab had not been tested for strength, two other portions of the monolithic pour had passed strength tests. Petitioner failed to prove that the garage floor was structurally unsound or even seriously uneven. Appearance was the primary reason for the removal of the floor. Second, the contractor who completed the job had to convert the master bedroom ceiling from a cathedral ceiling to a conventional ceiling due to problems with the truss design. However, the first truss company to which Respondent took the McCartys' plans refused to do the work, claiming that the design was impossible. The problem as to the ceiling was due to an error in planning for which Respondent was not responsible. None of the deficiencies described above, except for the omission of the J-bolts, affected the structural integrity of the house. Once the Hilti nails were properly installed, no structural deficiencies remained. Petitioner's independent expert witness and the second contractor whom Petitioner called, declined to testify that the work was grossly negligent. There is no evidence that the McCartys demanded correction of any of the defects described in Paragraphs 25-28. There is evidence that Quigley Homes, Inc. was ready, willing, and able to correct such problems. Under the circumstances, the overall work, given the nature of the deficiencies, was not grossly negligent or incompetent. Like the work itself, the supervision was sloppy at times but was not grossly negligent or incompetent. According to Mr. Smoot's testimony, Respondent's absence during the inspections and portions of the pour is typical among residential general contractors.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Adopted. 6. Adopted except that construction recommenced in July, 1986, and Mr. McCarty discovered that the plumbing was not in place on the day prior to the pour. 7 and 9. Adopted. 8. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Respondent's use of Hilti nails adopted. Remainder rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that the opening for a door in the garage was cut too small. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that certain trusses were not evenly spaced. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. The majority of the repairs and replacement done by Joyal were unnecessary. Those repairs that were necessary would have been done at no expense to the McCartys by Quigley Homes, Inc. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's personal involvement was not needed or required when Mr. Holbrook began to supervise the project. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 4 and 6. Adopted in substance. 5. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and unsupported by the evidence, except that it rained during the pour, the slab had bird baths, the J-bolts were not installed, a meeting took place among the McCartys, Respondent, and Mr. Smoot, Respondent subsequently suggested the use of Hilti nails, and the parties agreed upon the use of Hilti nails and other corrective measures. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony, except that the Hilti nails were, after a reinspection approved by Mr. Smoot. Rejected as subordinate. Findings concerning the source of delays are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Neither Petitioner or Respondent produced sufficient proof to explain the source of delays apart from the substantial delay caused by the McCartys' inability to perform under the contract. Because the burden of proof on this issue is upon Petitioner, the insufficiency of the evidence means that Respondent cannot be found guilty of untimely performance. The employment of Mr. Holbrook and his 30 years' experience are adopted. Adopted. 12-14. Rejected as subordinate. 15. Adopted. 16-17 and 21. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 10 above. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected as legal conclusion. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire Bruce D. Lamb Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Elting L. Storms, Esquire Storms, Krasny, Normile & Dettmer Fred Seely 780 South Apollo Boulevard Executive Director Post Office Box 1376 Construction Industry Melbourne, Florida 32902-1376 Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an aluminum contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of construction industry professionals and contractors operating in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was certified as an aluminum contractor and was issued license C-3664. He was, at the time in issue, the qualifying contractor of record for Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. and Ace Aluminum, Inc. are parts of the same entity and are operated by the same individuals. On December 1, 1993, Harvey W. Heimann, the owner of a town house located at 1802 Largo Vista Boulevard, in Largo, Florida, orally agreed with Willard Hill, the reputed representative of Ace Aluminum, to have an aluminum enclosure placed on the rear of his home. Mr. Hill initially had solicited the Heimanns during construction of the home, indicating Ace had done other work in the area. When the parties agreed on a price Mr. Hill indicated that construction would start as soon as the required permit could be obtained, and the job would be completed as soon as possible. No time period for construction was specified. When the job was completed, the Heimanns were not satisfied, feeling the workmanship was poor and the job was esthetically unsatisfactory. They complained numerous times either to Willard Hill or to a Mr. Smart, both reputed to be employees of the company, who promised to come and look the work over. No satisfactory corrections were made by the contractor, however. Nonetheless, an invoice was issued on January 21, 1994 in the amount of $1,720.00, and the Heimanns paid Ace Aluminum the sum of $1,360.00 by check on April 23, 1994, after some corrective work was accomplished. This check was subsequently endorsed and paid to Ace. In November 1995 a strong wind hit the Largo area during which some of the roof panels on the Heimanns' aluminum room installed by Ace/Phoenix blew off. Mrs. Heimann subsequently spoke by telephone with someone at the company office but got no satisfaction, and in February, contacted another aluminum contractor, Mr. Howe, to give them an estimate to repair the damage. When Mr. Howe found out that the installation was so recent, he refused to do any corrective work on it until he determined if the work had been both permitted and finally inspected. He found that a permit had been pulled for the installation. He then advised the owners to contact the original installer. The Heimanns wanted nothing more to do with Ace/Phoenix and on April 5, 1996, Mr. Howe pulled a permit to do the necessary work. The work, which also required the replacement of the screws affixing the base aluminum to the concrete with larger screws and a deeper insertion into the concrete, was completed by April 10, 1996, after which Howe arranged for the job to be properly inspected. The work Howe did passed inspection. According to David Livesay, the chief building inspector for Pinellas County, a permit for the project in issue was pulled by Willard Hill on December 9, 1993. Building Department records also show that on January 24, 1994, a frame inspection was done of the project which resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, denoting a failure, because of inadequate base anchoring. The actual inspection form reads, "Called in for 'building inspection' YTAG: 9:50AM Need verification of base fastening into slab, Recall J K." J K appears to be the initials of the inspector who did the inspection. On January 25, 1994, a second inspection was done and again the project was rejected because of the base fasteners. That inspection report reads, "9:30 AM Recheck same as previous insp." Both a yellow tag and a red tag mean that a code violation exists. The difference between the two is that while a red tag requires payment of a fee, a yellow tag does not. Notwithstanding the deficiency found in the first inspection was not corrected by Respondent or his company, no further action was taken until March 21, 1996, when Mr. Livesay filed a citation against the Respondent for "construction not to code" based on the work done at the subject address. A court date was set for April 5, 1996, but on March 23, 1996, Respondent appeared in court, pleaded guilty to the charge and paid a fine of $155.00. According to Mr. Livesay, normal procedure is for the contractor who has completed work which requires inspection to call in to have the inspection made. There is no indication here that this was not done. The problem here lies in the failure to make the necessary corrections disclosed by the inspection. Respondent, Bret Hill, admits that he is the individual whose license/certification was used to qualify Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., the company which did the work in issue. However, he denies having ever met or dealt with the Heimanns and this appears to be the case. Respondent's father, Willard Hill, indicates it is he who, as salesman for Ace/Phoenix, dealt with the Heimanns and pulled the permit for the required construction. He is also the individual who did the installation work and who called for the inspection when the work was completed. When the first inspection resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, he called, the next day, for a second inspection. Mr. W. Hill insists that the first yellow tag resulted from the inspector's inability to determine the size of the lag bolt used to fasten the aluminum to the concrete base. He also asserts that the day after the first inspection he brought the appropriate bolts to the site for the inspector's review, but the inspector did not see them and issued a second yellow tag. Nonetheless, Hill asserts, the bolts used were proper for the job and the room built according to the specifications submitted to the building department by Phoenix. The prime contractor for the housing project was Geiger Enterprises, and it was Geiger who hired Phoenix to do the screening work. Both Ace Aluminum and Phoenix Aluminum were, Hill indicates, owned by a Mr. Brabham, with Bret Hill serving only as the qualifying licensee. Taking into account all the above, the ultimate finding is that the work was done by Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., based on a permit issued to Phoenix; it was found to be inadequate on an inspection called for by Phoenix, and the identified deficiency was not shown to be corrected.
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, Bret Hill, guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 24643-5116 Bret Hill 4904 Headland Hills Avenue Tampa, Florida 33625 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license Number CG C017772. On April 13, 1986, the Respondent, Richard T. Warnky, entered into a written contract with Jackson S. and Muriel Boyer to construct a home for them on Block 1244, Lots 7 and 8, Unit 19, Cape Coral, Florida, otherwise known as 2414 S.E. 28th Street for a contract price of $95,295.00. The Boyers gave Respondent a $550.00 down payment prior to signing the contract and at the time of signing, gave him an additional 10 percent of the contract price, or $9,529.50. The contract called for the payment of an additional 10 percent at commencement of construction and this payment was made at ground breaking. When the plumbing was roughed in and the slab poured, according to the contract, the Boyers paid Respondent an additional 10 percent and an additional 20 percent, or $19.059.00 when the masonry work was completed and the lintel poured. The contract called for three additional payments of 20 percent and two 15 percent payments, but for reasons subsequently to be discussed, none of these three payments was made. The contract called for the house to be completed in eight months, (240 days). According to Mr. Boyer, the Respondent left town for 8 weeks as soon as he had been paid the first 10 percent payment. Respondent claims that he was out of town for one week during which time he took ill and was physically unable to begin construction for an additional seven weeks. He also contends that he did not want construction to start without his being there to supervise it. Respondent's version of this situation is accepted. From the beginning of construction, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer had questions concerning the quality of the work being done When the slab was poured, it had holes in it and showed hills and valleys. Nonetheless, it passed inspection by the building inspector and the block work started. Pictures taken by Mr. Gogel, the licensing inspector for the City of Cape Coral at the request of Mr. Davenport, the building official, in July, 1986, reflect numerous deficiencies in the construction. They show large gaps in the vertical block joints; a lateral deflection in the tie beam poured at the top of the top course of blocks; blow out of the frame for the tie beam resulting in concrete running down the block walls; displacement of the tie beam which shows bulges and deformities; loose mortar in joints of the fifth course of blocks from the bottom; voids in joints; severe slippage in the top of the tie beam resulting in a reduction of the top; honeycombing of the concrete in the tie beam with rough attempts shown to patch it; slippage and deflection of the tie beam; and similar defects shown in the 14 pictures making up Petitioner's Exhibit 4 as well as the 15 additional pictures taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport which were introduced as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6. On August 5, 1986, after Mr. Davenport and Mr. Gogel had visited the construction site at the request of Mr. Boyer, Mr. Davenport wrote Respondent a letter in which he discussed various items of workmanship on the property which needed Respondent's attention. In his letter, Mr. Davenport referred to the provisions of the American Concrete Institute Standards and the standards of the City of Cape Coral. He specifically pointed out that as to joints between cinder blocks, the joint should be not less than one quarter inch nor more than five eighths inch wide. His inspection indicated many of the masonry joints exceeded five eighths of an inch because the blocks were cut with a hammer rather than a block saw and in some cases, poured concrete extruded beyond the surface of the block. Mr. Davenport further addressed additional items which, he indicated, would require attention by the contractor in order for the work to meet the standards of acceptability for good residential construction in the City of Cape Coral. These included: waviness or blow out of sections of the tie beam; extrusion of concrete at the blow out patches; proper preparation of the cinder block walls for the receiving of stucco surface; honeycomb portions of the tie beam; and shimming and re-nailing of furring strips on the interior walls which had bent to follow the warped inner curve of the tie beam. These word descriptions are of the same defects shown in the photographs mentioned above. When Respondent reached that point in the construction where he felt an additional draw payment was called for, he requested it of the Boyers, but because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of the work he had done, they refused to make such payment. Mr. Warnky thereafter contacted his attorney who advised the Boyers by letter dated January 26, 1987, that their continued refusal to make draw payments as required by the contract, would jeopardize completion of the construction. No further payments have been made by the Boyers, however, since they consider the workmanship to be substandard and Mr. Warnky has done no further work on the project. The Boyers have had the work finished by another contractor at considerable additional expense. It should be noted, however, that the work done by the Respondent was passed by the building inspectors for the City of Cape Coral who did not indicate that it was below the cited code standards. Respondent is charged with gross negligence as a result of his failure to properly supervise the laying of the block walls with a resultant defect in the tie beam attached thereto. He admits that he was not present for approximately five to seven days during the ten days to two weeks that it took to lay the block on this project. Both Mr. and Mrs. Boyer contend that Respondent was not present at any time during the laying of the blocks by his employee, Mr. Sweebe. Since Mr. Boyer admits that he was not present at all times on all days that the blocks were being laid, it is impossible for him to indicate with any certainty that Respondent was never present. At best, the evidence shows that on those days when Mr. or Mrs. Boyer were present, Respondent was not present for the laying of the blocks. Based on his visit to the site and his observation of the workmanship, Mr. Davenport concluded that it was not of good quality. The materials used appeared to be suitable, but the application of the materials did not meet the criteria of the Southern Standard Building Code. These conditions are reparable, however, and it appears that Respondent did make efforts to repair some of the defects pointed out. For example, photographs taken on November 5, show an attempted "repair" of a honeycomb patch on the tie beam as does the November 19 photo. This latter picture, however, also shows that the tie beam is out of plumb and that furring strips were shimmed and covered with new furring in an attempt to comply with Mr. Davenport's letter of August 5. Further, this photo showing the waviness on a part of the tie beam indicates some grinding down in an attempt to bring it within standards. Notwithstanding, in Mr. Davenport's opinion, the workmanship by Respondent is below what is normally seen in the industry in Southwest Florida as it pertains to block masonry. These sentiments were reiterated by Mr. Verse, a certified general contractor in Sarasota for 13 years. Mr. Verse evaluated the various photographs taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport and compared the work done by the Respondent as depicted on the pictures, against the accepted standards utilized by the building trade in Florida. He concluded that Respondent's work was not acceptable. He agreed with Mr. Davenport as to the deficiency in the joints, in the support of the tie beam, of the forming of the tie beam, and as to all masonry and concrete work. The negligence involved here was in letting this type of work go on when it was not up to code. A prudent general contractor would have stopped any subcontractor when he saw this type of work being done. If Respondent was not present to do so, then he failed to properly supervise. If he was present and allowed this substandard work to continue, he was grossly negligent. Mr. Verse rejects Respondent's excuse for washed out mortar joints, attributing them to rain, as unsatisfactory and unacceptable because a careful contractor will generally cover his work with a plastic sheet in the event rain is imminent. Respondent states that in his years as a contractor, he has never seen this done. Neither did Mr. Mahlmeister. In any case, a prudent contractor would make some provision to protect his work against any outside factor which might reasonably tend to threaten it. Respondent's failure to do so does not excuse the result. The honeycombing and bulging of the tie beam could occur from either improperly formed concrete or properly formed concrete which was improperly vibrated. Based on his examination of the photographs, Mr. Verse concluded it was probably improperly formed. Supports for the forming were not used. Had they been, they would have prevented the bulges that are seen. Even if the form work was properly braced and formed, if the concrete in the tie beams was improperly poured, the tie beam could bulge out at the bottom. Mr. Dililch, the individual who poured the concrete for Mr. Warnky, indicated that the procedure was accomplished at the very hottest part of the day in the hottest part of the year, which caused the concrete to dry out too rapidly and necessitated adding additional water to the mixture in order to keep it pourable throughout the process. Mr. Dililch indicates that though those abnormal steps were necessary, nonetheless, the concrete was poured in one session without any necessity to layer it. There appear to be no joints in the beam, the major defects being the honeycombing and bulging. Mr. Dililch recognizes there were blow outs where the concrete oozed out from under the framing, but contends that these are relatively common and occur on many different jobs by different contractors. Numerous factors could cause a blow out including loose braces, loose clamps, and things of that nature. Prior to pouring the concrete here, Mr. Dililch examined the form carefully and was satisfied it met standards and was safe. Nonetheless, the tie beam contained several examples of honeycombing. Blow outs are difficult to see before the concrete is formed. Older rental clamps quite often come loose and the looseness shows up only when the concrete is poured into the form generating the stress which forces the "mud" out through the joint. On every house he has worked on, there has been at least one blowout. It is, in his opinion, a common occurrence. His self-serving testimony is of little probative value here. The forming for the tie beam was inspected by Mr. Mahlmeister before the beam was poured and determined to be safe. Mr. Verse was shown pictures of work accomplished by other contractors which show similar defects to those attributed here to the Respondent and he admits that other contractors do, from time to time, substandard work. However, based on the opportunity he had to examine Respondent's work in this instance, the Respondent's performance showed defects throughout the entire project, not merely in isolated instances. The deficiencies in Respondent's work are broad based and wide spread. While all contractors make mistakes, the number of Respondent's mistakes take his performance beyond the realm of accident and indicate substandard work in general. Respondent is a small-contractor who does most of the work on his projects by himself and supervises the rest. It is his practice to be present on the construction scene every day but in this case, he admits he was not present all of every day. He has been a contractor in Florida for seven years, building approximately two houses per year. Prior to coming to Florida, he was a builder up north. He takes a great deal of pride in his work and has had very few complaints concerning the quality of his construction. In fact, he got the Boyer job because he had built a house for the Boyer's daughter who was happy with the quality of his construction. He believes his work is equal to the standards of most Cape Coral builders. Respondent admits that he makes mistakes, but he strongly contends that none of the deficiencies here were serious or would make the house unsafe. With all the complaints against it, the tie beam poured under Respondent's supervision, was never changed or altered. Most of the defects cited were cosmetic in nature and would have been corrected by him when the house was stuccoed. Respondent has been disciplined by the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, previously, in 1984, when he was fined $250.00. It would appear that action was based on similar grounds to those in the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor be suspended for six months, that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1718 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER Petitioner failed to number Findings of Fact submitted and included them in a section entitled FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. However, as best as can be determined: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Accepted as evidence of prior disciplinary action. BY THE RESPONDENT None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard T. Warnky 4924 S. W. 11th Court Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether the use of explosives at Respondent's quarry has caused damage to the shore of Petitioner's lake; and, if so, whether (and what amount of) compensatory damages should be paid by Respondent to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gateway Estates Park Condominium Association (the "Association") is a condominium association organized under chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The Association oversees the Gateway Estates Park mobile home community ("Gateway Estates"), a condominium, which consists of 220 mobile homes and two vacant lots. Although the lots and mobile homes are owned by the individual owners, the Association holds title to a number of common elements, including two lakes——the South Lake (which is the subject of these proceedings) and the North Lake. Respondent SDI Quarry, a/k/a Atlantic Civil, Inc. ("SDI Quarry"), a mining company, uses explosives to extract construction materials such as limestone from quarries that are located in southwest Miami-Dade County. SDI Quarry has three mines that are near the South Lake; the closest of these is located approximately 7,000 feet from Gateway Estates. In 2005, SDI Quarry began blasting in the vicinity of Gateway Estates, and such activity has continued from that time until the present (i.e., as of the final hearing in this case). SDI Quarry operates the only mines at which blasting is conducted within close proximity to the subject community. The evidence does not establish the number of blasts conducted near Gateway Estates during the roughly dozen years leading up to this litigation. Between July 1, 2015, and October 17, 2016, however, SDI Quarry performed 25 blasts, and neither party suggested that this frequency of activity was unusually high or low relative to SDI Quarry's past performance. The undersigned draws the reasonable inference that the number of historical blasts affecting Gateway Estates is in the range of 200 to 250. The state regulates the use of explosives in conjunction with the extraction of materials such as sand and limestone. A mine operator must obtain a permit before commencing blasting activities. Among other things, a permit holder must comply with the statewide ground vibration limits established by the State Fire Marshal. These limits are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-2.024(4), which states that "[g]round vibration shall not exceed the limits of particle velocity and frequencies established by the U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations, No. 8507 Ground Vibration, Frequency Limits." The pertinent U.S. Bureau of Mines Report is incorporated by reference in the rule. SDI Quarry has complied with its obligations under rule 69A-2.024 to engage the services of an independent seismologist to measure and record, for every blast, the peak particle velocity ("PPV")——a value that reflects the maximum speed at which a particle vibrates due to a passing wave of seismic energy——at the location of the building nearest to the blast site that is not owned by the permit holder, and to report this information in writing to the State Fire Marshal. The PPV limit in the state of Florida is 0.5 inches per second. This particular standard derives from research conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to determine the ground vibration threshold for damage to structures such as buildings and homes. The state has not adopted a PPV limit dedicated to the protection of shorelines around lakes and ponds. Neither party identified any such standard having the force of law in any jurisdiction in the United States. There is no evidence that any of SDI Quarry's blasts reached or exceeded the 0.5 inch-per-second PPV limit. Moreover, at the location of Gateway Estates, most blasts caused a PPV of approximately 0.1 inches per second or less, and none led to a PPV in excess of 0.2 inches per second. In short, based on the current record, the undersigned determines that SDI Quarry was, at all relevant times, operating in compliance with the state laws regulating mining operations involving explosives. Because, however, as will be discussed below, blasting is an ultrahazardous activity, SDI Quarry is absolutely liable, as a matter of law, for damages caused by its use of explosives, regardless of fault. Therefore, SDI Quarry's regulatory compliance, per se, is irrelevant; that said, the PPV measurements obtained in the course of such compliance have probative value to the extent they bear on the issue of causation. The South Lake is a man-made body. It was excavated sometime before 1975, which was the year the Association was organized. From the waterline, the lake's shore slopes upward and levels off to a flat bank circling the water; beyond the bank are the backyards of the homes on the lake. Until 2011, when the slope began to lose stability and fail, the horizontal area of the South Lake's bank was approximately four to five feet wide, making it possible for residents to walk around the entire perimeter of the lake and engage in activities such as fishing. In 2011, about five or six years after SDI Quarry began blasting near Gateway Estates, the shore of the South Lake began to destabilize, and the saturated soil at the edges of the lake, consisting of silt or marl, began to slough and slump into the water. This opened up fissures in the slope, which undermined the upward bank. In time, holes appeared in the bank, and pieces of the once level surface fell off, resulting in the narrowing of the horizontal area, from roughly five feet or so, to about a foot and a half. Residents have observed the ground falling into the water in close temporal proximity to the blasting. One testified credibly that "after the blasting on January 20th, [2016,] the ground [in one section of the lake] actually separated and dropped into the water." Tr. 32. Because of the deterioration of the lakeshore, residents can no longer walk around the bank, or stand upon it and fish as in the past; the shore is too steep, and there are holes in the ground that render such activities unsafe. The stability of the slope has continued to worsen, and, as of the final hearing, the deterioration of the lakeshore, like the blasting, was ongoing. The Association has suffered property damage in the form of the deterioration of the shore and bank around the South Lake. There is, further, no dispute that from 2005 through the time of the final hearing, SDI Quarry has used explosives in connection with mining activities in the vicinity of Gateway Estates. The only genuine dispute of material fact relating to SDI Quarry's liability to the Association is whether the use of explosives caused the Association's loss——whether, in other words, the existing property damage at the South Lake would not have occurred but for SDI Quarry's blasting. The issue of causation in this case is a close one, and there is competent, substantial evidence on both sides. The Association offered the opinion testimony of James R. McNew, who is a construction consultant. Although Mr. McNew is not licensed as a professional engineer, he holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, awarded in 1972, and during the course of a 50-plus-year career has been involved as a consultant or project manager on a number of marine projects, including the construction of 27 bridges in South Florida, all of which had earthwork abutments and adjoining bodies of water. Some of the projects Mr. McNew supervised involved drilling and blasting operations. As a result, Mr. McNew has acquired specialized knowledge relating to the use of explosives in or around saturated and submerged soils from long practical experience, which in addition to his formal education and training qualified him to testify as an expert on causation in this case.2/ Mr. McNew's opinion is that vibrations from SDI Quarry's blasting acted upon the soft layer of silt atop the shore and bank of the South Lake, causing the liquefaction of this saturated soil, which extends down from the surface, to distances of up to eight feet. This led, in Mr. McNew's opinion, to the compaction of the loose, wet soil around the edges of the lake, opening up cracks and holes and weakening the slope, which began to erode and fail. Mr. McNew stated that there are no specific legal standards in Florida or elsewhere serving to establish PPV thresholds above which lakeshore slope instability would be expected under the stress of blast-related vibrations.3/ He opined that existing limits based on structure responses to ground vibrations are inapplicable, because buildings are designed and constructed to resist the stresses of seismic energy, in contrast to saturated silt on the shore of a lake. He explained that, consequently, lower levels of energy would suffice to cause damage to the bank of the South Lake, than would be expected to damage, e.g., a house at the same location. SDI Quarry's principal expert witness on causation was Steven E. Black, a Florida-licensed professional engineer who specializes in geotechnical engineering and has been practicing in the field since 1970.4/ In addition to these credentials, Mr. Black holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. At hearing, Mr. Black explained that there is a layer of calcareous silt that underlies the mobile home park and is exposed at the lakeshore. Mr. Black testified that this silt layer has been eroded over time by the action of wind, waves, and rainwater percolating down and through the ground, pulling the silt from the bank and resulting in the deterioration of the property. According to Mr. Black, the blasting carried out by SDI Quarry is not close enough to Gateway Estates to impart sufficient energy to affect the soil around the South Lake.5/ In his opinion, SDI Quarry's blasting activities did not cause, as he described it, "the sloughing of the edges of the lake." Yet, interestingly, Mr. Black agreed with Mr. McNew that heavy truck traffic could definitely affect the silt layer of the lakeshore over a continuous period of time. Tr. 145. (Mr. McNew expressed the opinion that ground vibrations from heavy equipment could cause damage to a lakeshore "if you [had] a haul road going around the lake." Tr. 77. He offered this comment while making the point that other sources of seismic energy besides blasting, e.g., heavy construction traffic, could be ruled out as causes of the damage to the South Lake because none have been known to occur.) The undersigned finds this concession of Mr. Black's to be significant because, while there is no evidence in the record establishing the typical levels of ground-borne vibration from heavy trucks or construction equipment traveling over a roadway, common knowledge and ordinary experience are sufficient to permit the fact-finder to infer that such levels would be lower by orders of magnitude, at the source, than those caused by the use of explosives to mine limestone. We know this because in ordinary experience, while we might feel some vibrations under foot when a large truck drives by, especially if the road surface is uneven, we can easily see——because the road remains intact—— that the truck has not suddenly released tremendous gas pressure inside the ground, producing enough energy to break rock, as occurs when explosives are placed in holes and detonated in a limestone quarry. As it happens, there are homes and other structures standing between the South Lake and the nearest streets, so any ground-borne seismic energy from passing trucks necessarily would be attenuated before reaching the lakeshore, just as the seismic energy from SDI Quarry's blasting is attenuated as it travels the one and one-third miles from the mine to the lake. As found above, by the time the energy wave from a blast reaches the South Lake, the PPV is typically 0.1 inches per second or less (although occasionally the level is higher), but obviously the PPV at the source of any given blast is far greater than that. Energy from a passing truck would not need to travel as far, to be sure, but it would be much weaker at the source than a construction mining blast. The undersigned does not have enough evidence before him to make a finding as to what levels of PPV would be expected at the South Lake as heavy trucks drove past the property, but he can reasonably infer that the seismic energy from nearby vehicular traffic would not likely exceed that of SDI Quarry's blasting, and indeed would likely be much lower. It is true, to be fair, that Mr. Black's opinion——that transportation sources of ground-borne vibration, if present, could affect the lakeshore——was qualified by conditions of frequency ("a lot of heavy truck traffic") and duration ("over a continuous period of time"). His opinion about the blasting, however, was that the energy imparted therefrom was insufficient to damage the lake, period———not that the blasting was too infrequent to cause the property damage, or that it had not been conducted for a sufficient period of continuous years to cause such damage. By conceding that the energy imparted from heavy trucks "could definitely affect" the stability of the silt layer, Mr. Black undercut the strongest part of his opinion on causation, namely its certainty that an absolute level of seismic energy, greater than that seen at the lake, is necessary to cause saturated silt to move. On balance, the undersigned finds Mr. McNew's opinion on causation to be more persuasive than the competing view. In addition, the undersigned finds that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with, and supports, Mr. McNew's opinion; indeed, such evidence might have been sufficient, without more, to establish a causal connection between the blasting and the property damage. Consider that the South Lake had existed for at least 35 years without experiencing the deterioration of the shore and bank that became noticeable within just five or six years after the start of the blasting, and which has worsened over time as the blasting has continued. Add to that the persuasive evidence that visible damage occurs in the wake of individual blasts. Taken together, these facts on the ground have probative value independent of expert opinion. That said, the undersigned credits Mr. Black's testimony to the extent it supports a finding that erosion from wind, wave, and rainwater is a natural cause of some deterioration at the shore of the South Lake. It is further found, however, that this natural erosion is not the sole and independent cause of the Association's property damage. Rather, it is determined that the seismic energy from SDI Quarry's blasting is acting in combination with this natural erosion, and that the blasting, as a concurring cause, is contributing substantially to producing the sloughing of the lakeshore, fissures and holes in the slope, and consequent loss of level area from the bank that have occurred, and continue to occur, at the South Lake. In sum, the Association has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SDI Quarry's blasting is a legal cause of the property damage for which compensation is being sought. As for the measure of damages, the Association presented evidence of a proposal from Upper Keys Consulting LLC ("Upper Keys"), which is dated July 18, 2015, for restoring the shore of the South Lake and installing preventative devices to protect the shoreline against erosion from future blasting. This proposal included several options, ranging in price from $840,000.00 to $1.45 million. The Association seeks to recover $840,000.00 from SDI Quarry to cover the cost of repairing and protecting its property. SDI Quarry did not present persuasive evidence either challenging the efficacy, or questioning the expense, of the Upper Keys proposal. The undersigned finds, therefore, that an amount of $840,000.00 is supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented. SDI Quarry contends, as an affirmative defense, that the Association failed to file its petition for relief within 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged damage, as required by section 552.40(1). The petition was filed on February 22, 2016, and SDI Quarry maintains that the damage to the South Lake had already occurred more than 200 days earlier, by July 18, 2015——i.e., the date of the Upper Keys proposal. SDI argues that, as a result, the Association's claim is time barred. The undersigned rejects this argument because, as a matter of fact, the property damage at issue is present and continuing; the harm to the lakeshore is cumulative, indivisible, and inseparable. The deterioration of the South Lake worsens with each blast, and the blasting was still going on during the 180 days preceding the initiation of this action. The damage, consequently, did not simply occur once in the past. This action is not time barred. Despite finding that SDI Quarry is liable to the Association for the property damage caused by its blasting, the undersigned determines that SDI Quarry's defenses were supported by evidence of material facts; were grounded in existing law; and were not advanced primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, for frivolous purposes, or to needlessly increase the cost incurred by the Association. As stated above, the question of causation is close in this case, and there is conflicting evidence on this crucial issue. That the undersigned resolved the evidential conflicts in the Association's favor neither means, nor is meant to imply, that SDI Quarry's position lacked substantial merit.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact King Royer, Inc., the Petitioner, and the State of Florida, Department of General Services, entered into a contract dated October 15, 1974, for the construction of vocational facilities at the Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. A copy of the contract agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the plans for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the specifications for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, all admitted into evidence. The contract has been completed and a certificate of contract completion issued by the Department of General Services as reflected in the copy of that certificate which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The certificate of contract completion is attended by a letter of explanation from the architectural firm in charge of the project which letter is Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This certificate of contract completion makes reference to change order No. 2, and a copy of change order No. 2 has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This cafe is brought pursuant to Article 8.5 of the contract document, Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner for Construction of Buildings, which calls for claims and disputes to be appealed to the Department of General Services for hearing. Those specific claims of appeal are promoted by two documents. The first document is the letter of July 16, 1975, by King Royer as president of the Petitioner corporation. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Department of General Services and is treated as the appeal document. There are five items within this element of the appeal which are listed as follows: "(1) Extension of tire for completion of the project, due to late delivery of the engineered metal building, and delays in completing corrective work of which we were informed only a few days before scheduled completion of the project. Removal of concrete floor which we believed to be 4" thick on the plans, but for which the Architect contends 6" thickness is required. Removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of slab which we contend was substantially in accordance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. Temporary bracing for the building, not necessary for any possible loads on such bracing, during removal of the concrete slab. Painting of interior metal structure, not required by the plans and specifications." Paragraphs one and four of this letter/petition will not be considered in substance, for reasons which will be set forth in the section of this recommended order, entitled Conclusions of Law. The second element of the appeal concerned an amendment to the appeal for purposes of considering change order No. 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This amendment was entered into by stipulation and agreement of counsel for the parties. The stipulation and agreement, indicated that the appeal could consider the elements of the change order to this extent: (1) The element on extension of time due to inclement weather; (2) liquidated damages, only those elements where the liquidated damages pertain to delays associated with the removal of the concrete floor slabs reflected in paragraphs two and three of the original appeal and the painting of interior metal structures as indicated in paragraph five of the original appeal; (3) additional testing shown in the change order; (4) additional services of the structural engineer shown in the change order; and (5) additional services, of the architects and engineering firm, shown in the change order. The first it ruled to be a proper subject for consideration in this appeal, was item two of the July 16, 1975, appeal. As mentioned before this item deals with the removal of a concrete floor which the Petitioner contends was supposed to be 4" thick in accordance with the plans and for which the architect in speaking for the Respondent claims should have been 6" thick to comply with the plans. This area is shown at page 2 of 27 in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is to plan of the project. The area is found between column line A as a southern boundary and it's northern boundary is a common line extended from the northern wall of the auto mechanics shop. Its eastern boundary runs along column line 5, than proceed through an area approximately 4' 10" wide from column line 5, west to the eastern most wall of classroom 1, and then inset to the eastern wall of the instructor's office No. 1, and then inset to the small closet like area identified as No. 1, these latter dimensions making up the western boundary of the disputed area. In the initial pour of the concrete in that area, the depth of the pour was 4" and was so intended by the Petitioner. The architect of the project discovered that the depth was 4" and not 6" and ordered that this section of the concrete slab be removed. The removal was effected and the cost of that removal and reinstallation is at issue in the appeal. Sheet 5-2, which is at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, calls for a 6" concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop and this auto mechanics shop is that area identified on Sheet 2 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and includes the disputed area previously described before. Since the initial pour was 4" instead of 6" in the area as described, the Petitioner was not in compliance with the plans and the architect was correct to cause the removal of the initial pour and the substitution of the 6 " pour. Item three in the appeal, set forth on July 16, 1975, questions the requirement for the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of slab which the Petitioner contended was in substantial compliance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. This area would be constituted of the remaining aspect of the auto mechanic shop which has not previously been identified in discussing item No. 2. Its southern boundary begins at the intersection of column line A and 1, thence along column line A to the intersection with column line five; go dawn column line 5 from that point to the intersection with the first wall encountered to locate the western boundary; then along that wall east to an intersection of the wall and column line 1 to locate the northern boundary; and then south along column line 1, to the intersection of column line 1 and column line A, to locate the eastern boundary. When the Petitioner initially poured the concrete slab in this area it placed the welded wire fabric by such a method that fabric sunk to the bottom or near bottom of the concrete slab, in violation of Division 3.2C. of the specifications, which call for the welded wire fabric to be placed in the center of the slab. Approximately a week after the floor was poured a Case No. 584 diesel forklift which weighs 10,000 pounds was driven onto the newly poured slab in the auto mechanics area, 100 to 150 times carrying approximately 1500 pounds of structural members on each run. Subsequent to the time that the mesh sunk to the bottom or the near bottom of the concrete floor slab, cracks were discovered in the surface of the floor of the auto mechanics shop and these cracks are determined to be structural cracks. These structural cracks were promoted in part by the location of the mesh in the concrete slab and by the traffic of the fork lift. The location of the mesh may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 which is a photograph of the auto mechanics slab when it was being removed and also in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which is a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area. The nature of the structural cracks is shown by hand drawn lines placed on number 5-2, at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, the pencil lines being drawn by Villany Hausner, the structural engineer on the project and the red lines being drawn by Jeff Hoxie, the project architect. This floor slab in the auto mechanics area was also dusted in contravention of Division 3.11A of the specifications which prohibits dusting of the exposed slab. The Petitioner tried to demonstrate that the cracks found on the surface of the concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop were not structural in nature by driving a 38,000 pound concrete truck onto the slab in the auto mechanics area in excess of two months after the pour. This test is found to be inadequate to overcome the conclusion that the cracks were structural in nature in that the test was not properly designed. The Petitioner was offered an opportunity for utilizing a properly designed test at its expense, as prescribed by the architect but the Petitioner did not respond to this offer. There was conflicting evidence about the depth of the initial pour in the area of the 2500 square feet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 seems to indicate that a test performed by the Petitioner showed the depth to be substandard but other Exhibits by the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's Exhibits No. 11 and No. 12 show photographs of the concrete slab being torn out indicating that the depth approximated 7". There is also an Exhibit, Respondent's No. 9 which was a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area, but it is not clear what section of the auto mechanics area it was taken from, whether in the 2500 square foot area or in the narrow area 4' X 10" which was mentioned in the point No. 2 of the appeal of July 16, 1975. After reviewing the evidence on the depth of the slab, it is not clear what the true depth was on an average, in the 2500 square foot section. Nonetheless, based on the structural cracks, as explained by the mesh location and to a lesser extent by the driving of the fork lift truck onto the slab, the initial pour of to 2500 square feet was not in compliance with the contract and tie architect was correct in having the slab removed when the Petitioner failed to respond to his offer to have the slab tested. Item No. 5 in the July 16, 1975 appeal pertains to the painting of the interior metal structures and the Petitioner claims that these metal structures are not required by the plans and specifications to be painted. The Petitioner promotes his argument by reference to Division No. 9 of the specifications, particularly 3.7A of Section 9F, which is found on page 9F-8. This part, 3.7A says, "do not paint . . . pre-finished item as specified under Division 13- special construction." Therefore, it is the Petitioner's contention that any item found in Division 13 should not be painted. However, Division 13 in its Section 13B, 3.1C found at page 13B-2, says, "give one shop coat of paint as specified herein to all steel surfaces . . ." This statement is further supported by Division 9, Section 9F, 3.6B(3) at page 9F-7, which says that ferrous metals, including shop painted items will have one coat of rust inhibiting primer and one coat of interior gloss oil house paint. Therefore, the reference 3.7A in Section 9-F of Division 9 does not exclude all so called pre-finished items as specified under Division 13 from painting and the architect was correct in insisting that all interior metal structures which were not in fact pre-finished be given a shop coat, one coat of rust inhibiting primer, and one coat interior gloss oil house paint, as necessary. The second aspect of the appeal concerns change order No. 2. The parties agreed that the 20 day extension of time due to inclement weather should be awarded to the Petitioner at $50 a day for a total amount of $1,000. The second item of the change order concerning liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800 is sustained in view of the fact that only those items pertaining to the removal of the floor slab and painting of the structural members could be considered in addressing the liquidated damages, because of the prior stipulation. Therefore, the architect being found correct in his actions, the liquidated damages should stand. Items 3-5 in the change order concerning additional testing, additional services of the structural engineer and additional services of the architect and engineering firm are proper cost items in view of the problems associated with the floor slab and the appeal of their assessment should be rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that those items found in the July 16, 1975 letter of appeal offered by the Petitioner not be allowed. It is further recommended that the matters as set forth in the amendment to the petition as found in change order No. 2 be allowed only to the extent of an award of $1,000 for extension of time due to inclement the technique considered acceptable far reimbursement of the amount of $1,000, regardless of the decision on the other matters of the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John F. Roscow, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's explosives license should be revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 4A, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated June 9.1981, as amended. This proceeding arises under an Administrative Complaint filed by the State Fire Marshal, Department of Insurance, against Respondent, F. R. Jahna Industries, Inc., alleging that on or about February 26, 1981, Respondent violated Rules 4A-2.19(6) and (8), Florida Administrative Code, by detonating explosives in such a manner that rocks, dust and blast debris encroached on Highway 491 and residences in Beverly Hills, Florida. Violation of the aforesaid rules is predicated upon the allegation that the blast was done in a congested area, in close proximity to structures and highways, without using a mat to prevent fragments from being thrown, and by failing to block off adjacent roads. The State Fire Marshal seeks to revoke Respondent's explosives license issued under Chapter 552, Florida Statutes, or to impose any appropriate lesser penalties. Respondent filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57 (1), F.S., hearing and the petition was referred to this Division for the appointment of a Hearing Officer. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of seventeen witnesses, including deposition testimony of two witnesses. Respondent called seven witnesses and submitted ten exhibits in evidence. Proposed recommended orders filed by the parties have been fully considered, and those portions thereof which have not been adopted herein are considered either to be unnecessary, irrelevant or unsupported in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. is licensed by Petitioner Department of Insurance under Explosives License No. 0463570178-00, for the operations of its limerock mine located on Highway 491 four miles north of Lecanto, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Pleadings) Respondent's Lecanto mine or quarry is comprised of approximately 100 acres where blasting operations are conducted for the purpose of producing limestone aggregate in various sizes for use in asphalt, concrete block, and ready-mix concrete. Blasting takes place along the "face" of the quarry and each "shot" is designed to dislodge and move a predictable amount of limestone. The Respondent routinely follows standard industry "state of the art" procedures in conducting its blasting operations under the supervision of state licensed "blasters" employed by the firm. The customary procedure employed is to decide on the desired location of a blast, strip the soil from the top of the rock deposit, and lay out the shot pattern on the ground with red marking paint to designate the holes into which the explosives will be placed. A. specified number of holes are drilled to a predetermined depth, after which the explosive material and detonating devices are inserted into the holes, leaving enough room at the top for "stemming" material which consists of the drill cuttings which are tamped by a wooden rod. Stemming is designed to hold pressure in the hole for a long enough period to achieve maximum blasting force for movement of rock. Too little stemming can cause "fly-rock," which are uncontrolled pieces, to fly out of the top of the hole in a ballistic trajectory at great speed. Such an occurrence would almost always be due to the negligence of blasting personnel in failing to insert sufficient stemming material for the particular blast. In quarry blast operations, it is customary to use a plastic "sleeve" in the drilled hole into which the explosive material is poured. A sleeve is used in order that the powder will not concentrate in a fissure or other void and thus cause a "blowout" of the explosion through the face of the quarry. (Testimony of Day, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibit 10, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 8-9) Respondent's rock mine is directly across Highway 491 from the Beverly Hills residential development. A forested buffer area lies between the housing development and Highway 491. (Testimony of Hubbard, Connor, Respondent's Exhibits 1-4 a-c) On February 26, 1981, at 4:50 P.M., Respondent's personnel conducted a blasting operation at the mine. The location of the blast was 1065.32 feet in a straight line direction west of Highway 491, and 1660.21 feet from Washington Street in Beverly Hills. The shot pattern consisted of 22 holes 30 feet deep placed 14 feet apart in three rows. There was a 12 foot separation between each row. Two hundred and fifty pounds of explosive material consisting of nitrocarbonitrate was poured into a plastic sleeve inserted into each hole. Nitrocarbonitrate is ammonium nitrate fertilizer with 6 percent diesel fuel. Total explosive material for the shot was 250 pounds per hole for a total of 5500 pounds. Two primers per hole were used for a total of 44 pounds. The holes were tamped with eight feet of stemming material each. Preparation for the shot and the loading of the explosive materials was supervised by Respondent's general manager, Aggregates Division, who is a licensed blaster, and by the mine superintendent, Willard Thompson. The head foreman was Billy McCranie, a licensed blaster who supervised the drilling and loading of the holes, and personally wired and stemmed the shot. A tape measure with a weight was used to insure that each hole contained eight feet of stemming. The manner in which the shot was prepared and detonated followed customary practice and was appropriate under the prevailing conditions for the amount of rock intended to be moved from the face of the mine. Although in prior mining operations, blasts had been conducted some 750 feet closer to Highway 941 than the shot on February 26th, there had never been an incident where fly-rock or other material had reached the highway. At the time the February 26th shot was laid out, there was a prevailing northwest wind of approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour which was gusty, but would not normally have impacted significantly on the blast. The wind did increase considerably at the time of the blast, but the superintendent did not consider it sufficient to warrant postponing the shot with the requisite notification to the State Fire Marshal. It is hazardous to leave explosives in the ground overnight unless it cannot be avoided. However, wind does not blow rock particles larger than a "BB" in size for any distance. Larger particles or rocks would simply be blown up and come down in the same locale, regardless of the strength of the wind, unless on a ballistic trajectory due to negligence in stemming of the shot. In such cases, rocks would travel at great speed and ultimately be imbedded in the earth. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Thompson, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibits 5-6) At the time of the blast, general manager Day was located approximately 800 feet away from the site of the shot, foreman McCranie was approximately 400 feet away underneath a loader, and Thompson was at the front entrance of the mine. All three individuals observed that the rock was displaced in a normal manner as a result of the explosion and that no rocks reached their positions. They saw a large dust cloud drift across the area toward Highway 491 which was somewhat farther than normal due to the prevailing wind. At no time, did any of them believe that unusual precautions were necessary such as blocking off the highway. They did not consider the use of a blasting mat to cover the explosion. Such a mat, which is usually constructed of steel cable or chain, is not feasible for use in industrial mining operations due to the great size and weight required, and because an explosion would simply disintegrate the steel material and create a hazardous condition. Blasting mats are primarily used for small shots in heavily congested urban areas. Experts in the field of blasting are of the opinion that blasting mats are totally inappropriate for use in mine blasting operations. They further are of the opinion that the conditions of the shot on February 26th did not warrant any unusual precautions such as road closing, due to the location and type of blast, plus the fact that it could not be reasonably anticipated that any material would be thrown by the explosion more than three to four hundred feet from the blast site location. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Muldrow, Thompson, Younginer, Froedge) The impact of the blast on various residents of Beverly Hills was varied, but there was general agreement among those who testified at the hearing that they heard a loud blast which shook the ground and was followed by a large grey or black cloud which drifted across Highway 491 into the Beverly Hills development at a height of several hundred feet. The cloud contained dust particles of salt size which peppered a number of the residents who were standing in their yards. One individual, Sidney Holt, who lives on the second street of the housing area from Highway 491, observed several pebbles fall in his yard which looked like sandstones, including one as big as a "pullet egg" which imbedded itself about a half inch in the sandy soil. Another resident, H. R. Hubbard, who lives on Washington Street, which is the first street of the development, was in his yard at the time and heard stones falling close by. Although he did not personally see any rocks fall, he later found three large stones bearing greyish marks lying on the surface of an open ground area behind his house toward Highway 491. The largest of these stones was approximately the size of a grapefruit and the other two were somewhat smaller. Although Hubbard testified that he had raked that area the day before and the rocks had not then been present, expert opinion testimony of blasting experts rules out the probability that the rocks were thrown or otherwise resulted from the February 26th blast, due to the distance involved and the fact that ammonium nitrate would leave a white rather than gray powder burn. Insufficient evidence was presented to warrant a finding that the rocks found on ground as described by Hubbard resulted from the explosion. (Testimony of Froedge, Connor, Hubbard, J. Baffuto, Holt, Rospierski, Neison, Muldrow, Pease, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Other manifestations of the explosion experienced by Beverly Hills residents included chandeliers shaking and one falling from its mounting in a home three-quarters of a mile east of Highway 491. Another home owner approximately one-half mile east of the highway observed his awning windows open and close slightly from the blast. An individual who resides some one and three-quarter miles west of Respondent's mine saw his sliding glass patio doors "whip" or vibrate against the door frame several times. One Beverly Hills resident who lived two blocks east of the highway noticed that a pot on her stove vibrated onto the adjacent kitchen counter. Occupants of two motor vehicles traveling near the mine entrance at the time of the blast felt a strong concussion and observed the large dust cloud cross the highway into Beverly Hills. They also saw rocks the size of a fist and as large as a grapefruit in the air. One individual, Robert H. Martin, heard a rock hit his car and he also observed rocks falling on the highway. He slowed down and stopped at the time due to poor visibility caused by the dust cloud. He later found that there was a dent in his right front fender. The other automobile driven by Andrew Pustay was near the entrance of the mine at the time of the explosion. He continued driving although the blast caused him almost to lose control of his car and the dust obscured his visibility to approximately twenty or twenty five feet. He later observed a number of marks or dents on the hood, fenders and doors of his car -- several about the size of a dime --- where the paint had been removed and which had not been present prior to the explosion. The blast effect on residents would have been similar to lightning striking the ground. (Testimony of Jay Baffuto, DeMarta, Tripp, C. Baffuto, Martin, Schuster, A. Pustay (Deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit 3), M. Pustay Petitioner's Exhibit 2)), Froedge) Respondent has maintained a seismograph near the mine site for the past several years to measure ground vibrations and over-pressure from blasting operations. The seismograph was operating on February 26, 1981 at the time of Respondent's blast and failed to register any vibration. Such a failure is indicative of the fact that vibration as a result of the blast was minimal and not sufficient to cause damage in the surrounding area of Beverly Hills. (Testimony of Straw, Respondent's Exhibit 7) James R. Vereen, Petitioner's Chief, Bureau of Explosives, expressed the agency policy as to the use of blasting mats to be that the use of mats should be considered by the explosives user any time there is a possibility of fly-rock and consequent property damage or personal injury. However, he has never seen a blasting mat used in a quarry operation. (Testimony of Vereen)
Recommendation That Petitioner impose an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent, E. R. Jahna, Inc., pursuant to Section 552.161(1), Florida Statutes, for violation of Rule 4A-2.19 (8), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 9th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Jack P. Brandon, Esquire Post Office Box 1079 Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Don Bradshaw, Esquire 204 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650 Honorable Bill Gunter Treasurer and Insurance Commission and State Fire Marshal State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
