ALJDEC

01F-T1127-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-02-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: Tuesday. February 12th, 2002; 1:45 p.m. APPEARANCES: The complainant, Ms. Olga O. Glosser, was represented by Mr. Charles E. Fletcher, attorney-at-law. The respondent, Santa Cruz Roofing, Inc., failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson, Arizona. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The respondent license in this case, Class C-42 number 058253, of Santa Cruz Roofing, Inc., was revoked by order of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors in the case of Nick Castaneda v. Lic. No. 058253, Class C-42 of Santa Cruz Roofing, Inc., T01-1020. The order of revocation was signed by Registrar of Contractors Michael Goldwater on November 5th, 2001. 2. Respondent timely filed for a rehearing of T01-1020, but that petition was rejected by the registrar by order dated January 19th, 2002. The order rejecting the petition for rehearing provided that the revocation would be effective on February 18th, 2002. The revocation was not stayed by any appeal taken to superior court. Thus as of the date of this writing, February 20th, 2002, the respondent’s license is revoked. 3. The revocation of respondent’s license pursuant to the outcome of Castaneda v. Santa Cruz Roofing, supra, was based on the same set of facts and circumstances which gave rise to the present case involving the same respondent and Complainant Glosser. Administrative notice of the registrar’s decision and order in T01-1020 was taken in the hearing of this case, on the record. This complainant, Ms. Glosser, is even involved in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that previous decision and order. 4. Briefly put, as found in T01-1020, this respondent defectively installed a roof to Castaneda’s building which is the property adjacent to Ms. Glosser’s residence in Clifton, Arizona. Because of the defective installation of that roof, when a strong, but not unforeseeable or unprecedented, wind came to the area on April 21st, 2001, it lifted the roof and blew it over Ms. Glosser’s property, and there deposited it onto her home’s roof, guest house (or room), outbuilding, and utility pole servicing her home, damaging all. 5. Complainant filed a complaint against this respondent on June 5th, 2001. The complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Richard C. Allen, who conducted a job-site inspection of the Glosser residence on July 3rd, 2001. He issued a Corrective Work Order to the respondent dated July 13th, 2001. The CWO directed the respondent to “Correct/replace/restore all property damage throughout resulting from the improperly installed roofing system of neighboring building that landed on the complainant’s property,” and “Reimburse for replaced utility pole and electrical supply.” The CWO allowed the respondent 15 calendar days to make these corrections, which was a reasonable amount of time. 6. Respondent failed to take any steps to comply with the CWO. The previous complainant, Mr. Castaneda, took it upon himself to correct the damaged utility pole and restore electrical service to this complainant’s house. 7. Among the damage verified by the inspector and corroborated by the other evidence in this hearing was damage to complainant’s roof, damage to a storage building on her property, and damage to a guest house (or room) on her property. It is further found that as a result of the roof landing on complainant’s property, its impact and weight caused additional settling of complainant’s house, which manifested itself in the form of cracks to the interior walls. As of the pre-hearing inspection by the inspector, conducted the day prior to the hearing, the width of these cracks had enlarged to 1/8”. The inspector also testified and it is found that the house now requires re-leveling. The house being out of level also has caused the toilets to not stop running. 8. Complainant claims that the roof also damaged her grandchildren’s swing set and a barbecue pit, but there is insufficient evidence to so find. 9. Additional facts surrounding the particulars of the events giving rise to this complaint can be seen in the decision and order of T01-1020. Those facts having been adopted by the registrar they are found as facts here and incorporated into the findings of this case. 10. Notice is taken of the respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors which includes revocation for violations of A.R.S. §32-1154-2., 3., and 7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S §32-1156 and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. The respondent herein is charged with possible violations of A.R.S. §32- 1154.A.7., 23., and 3. 3. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. prohibits a licensed contractor from violating any rule adopted by the registrar. The rule cited in this case is A.A.C. R4- 9-108, Workmanship Standards. As decided by the registrar in the previous case, T01-1020, respondent did violate A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. by his poor construction of the roof on the Casteneda property. 4. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7. prohibits a licensed contractor from engaging in any wrongful or fraudulent act as a licensed contractor which results in another person being substantially injured. It was already concluded in T01-1020 that respondent violated this statute in relation to this complainant, when his defective roof landed on this complainant’s property. Thus it is so concluded here. 5. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. prohibits a licensed contractor from failing to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the contractors’ laws of this state, without valid justification, within a reasonable amount of time, after receiving a written directive from the registrar to do so. The written directive in this case was the Corrective Work Order. Respondent failed to obey it. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. 6. The violations in this case, in and of themselves, also warrant revocation of respondent’s license. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that respondent’s Class C-42 License be revoked on the effective date of this order (40 days after the date of service shown on the registrar’s certification on the order). Done this day, February 26th, 2002.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of February, 2002, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488