ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308476368-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-06-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 17, 2011 APPEARANCES: Jeanne Chao appeared personally and was represented by her attorney, H. Paul Honsinger, Esq. Dreager Development, Inc, doing business as Greenlight Solar Industries, was represented by its authorized representative, Martin Dreager. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Dreager Development, Inc., doing business as Greenlight Solar Industries (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 161102, a Class KB-2 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. Jeanne Chao (“Complainant”) is the owner of a rental property located at 2301 Bryce Lane, Lake Havasu City, Arizona. 3. Complainant and Respondent entered into a written agreement dated June 15, 2010, for the purchase and installation of a photovoltaic system (“PV System”) at Complainant’s rental property. 4. On October 12, 2010, Complainant filed a written Complaint with the Registrar alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent on the subject project. The Registrar designated the Complaint as Case No. 2010- [number redacted]. 5. The Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010- [number redacted] charging Respondent with violating the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and (17). 6. The Registrar forwarded Case No. 2010-[number redacted] to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. 7. The PV System installed by Respondent is the maximum size that could be installed on Complainant’s roof. 8. Respondent hired a licensed electrical subcontractor to perform the electrical scope of work for the PV System’s installation. 9. Respondent’s installation of the PV System was inspected and approved by the local building authority. Therefore, the weight of credible evidence established that Respondent’s PV System installation met code requirements. 10. The Registrar’s assigned inspector, Cliff Corlett, performed inspections of the PV System. Inspector Corlett testified that he found no workmanship violations with the PV System. 11. At one time the installed PV System caused a leak into the subject residence. Respondent repaired the roof penetration. Respondent performed a water test after the repairs and there were no further leaks. Inspector Corlett observed that the roof penetrations were properly sealed, clean, tight, and dry. 12. David Ade is a supervisor for Esmay Electric, a licensed electrical contractor and Respondent’s largest competitor. 13. Mr. Ade testified that he removed one bolt from Respondent’s PV System’s roof mounting system for an inspection. 14. Mr. Ade had the following criticism of Respondent’s workmanship: exposed wire not in conduit; the ground wire was not continuous; the use of a rail for grounding; the ground wire should be six gauge instead of the eight gauge used by Respondent; and various alleged code issues. 15. Mr. Ade’s criticism of Respondent’s workmanship is not supported by the findings of Inspector Corlett and the local building authority. 16. There is no credible evidence to support Complainant’s contention that Respondent informed her that the PV System would offset a substantial part of the residence’s monthly electrical usage, if not all of it. Respondent had not been presented with a history of the residence’s electric bills at the time of contracting. Complainant does not monitor her tenants’ electrical usage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119(B), Complainant has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119(A). 3. Complainant failed to sustain her burden of establishing that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. On the contrary, the evidence of record established that Respondent’s installation of the solar system meets workmanship standards. Inspector Corlett determined that there were no workmanship issues with Respondent’s installation of the solar system, and the local building authority determined that the installation met local building code requirements. 4. Complainant also failed to sustain her burden of establishing that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (17), as charged in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar. A Class KB-2 licensee may contract for the performance of electrical work, but the licensee must subcontract such work to a properly licensed electrical contractor. Respondent subcontracted the electrical work on the subject project to a properly licensed electrical subcontractor. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Citation and Complaint in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] shall be dismissed on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, June 6, 2011.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826