ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-812-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2014-07-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 21, 2014, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (hereinafter “Registrar”) was represented by Assistant Attorney General Michael Raine, Esq. Valley Of The Sun Roofing LLC (hereinafter “Valley” or “Respondent”) was represented by its attorney, Clifford L. Frisbie, Esq., The Frisbie Law Group, PLLC. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT Background The Registrar issued License No. C-42.186171-R to Valley on June 23, 2003. The Registrar issued License No. L-42.186172-C to Valley on June 10, 2003. On or about August 2, 2013, the Registrar received a Complaint against Valley from Bill Kennedy (hereinafter “Mr. Kennedy”) alleging poor workmanship by Valley on a residence owned by Mr. Kennedy that was located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406.[1] On or about September 6, 2013, Registrar Investigator Phil Coscia (hereinafter “Investigator Coscia”) conducted an onsite inspection at the construction project located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. The Registrar subsequently issued a Corrective Work Order on September 20, 2013, directing Valley to properly correct its deficient workmanship on the construction project. The Corrective Work Order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. Complaint: Roof leaks in garage – drywall- wet paint:

ROC Inspector: Contractor to correct by the appropriate means.

2. Complaint: Roofing material on concrete drive:

ROC Inspector: The inspector was of the opinion that any roofing material on the concrete has been substantially cleaned. No further corrective action is required of the contractor.

3. Complaint: Foam on A/C units:

ROC Inspector: Contractor should correct by the appropriate means

4. Complaint: Parapet walls scratches from hose – no protection for the paint job:

ROC Inspector: Contractor should correct by the appropriate means, touching up the areas matching the color of the paint as closely as possible.

5. Complaint: Foam on roof ½” or less. Contract states 1” – few areas are 1”:

ROC Inspector: Probing the thickness of the foam in random areas of the roof confirmed many areas were well under the Registrar’s workmanship standard for foam roofs, which provides: “ROOFS – FOAM For the purposes of these standards, “nominal inch” will be defined as “at least 1 inch” with occasional 7/8” measurements acceptable”. Contractor should correct by the appropriate means.

6. Complaint: Scratches on new skylights his people trying to remove foam:

ROC Inspector: While some swirling marks were visible on the skylight lenses; the inspector is of the opinion that it in no way degrades the function or appearance of the skylights. No corrective action is required of the contractor.

7. Complaint: Install two coatings of “Elastomeric” coating. “Elastomeric ”coatings are two feet on fireplace and parapet walls:

ROC Inspector: The application of elastomeric on the masonry block is not uncommon; however from an aesthetic point of view, any areas that are visible when viewing from the ground should be painted to match the color of the home. Contractor should correct by the appropriate means.

8. Complaint: Second coat did not cover granules:

ROC Inspector: Following repairs to the foam, contractor should ensure that the “Elastomeric” coating is applied in the proper thickness.

On or about October 10, 2013, Mr. Kennedy filed a request that the Registrar issue a Citation against Valley’s contractor’s license. Mr. Kennedy stated that Valley had not corrected the problems with his roof. On or about October 11, 2013, Valley filed a response, stating that Mr. Kennedy’s roof had been corrected by Valley. On or about December 23, 2013, Investigator Coscia conducted a second onsite inspection at the residence located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Investigator Coscia found that the following items had either not been fully corrected or not corrected at all:[2] 1. Roof leaks in garage-drywall-wet paint. There was no change in the appearance of the garage ceiling and it appeared that the roof was still leaking over this area.

4. Parapet wall scratches from hose-no protection for the paint job: Although the scratches were corrected foam overspray is still on the masonry block parapets.

5. Foam on roof ½” or less. Contract states 1”-few areas are 1”: I probed the roof again using a straightened paperclip. (Complainant marked probed areas so he could fill with caulking later). There did not appear to be any change in the depth of the foam where I had inspected at my original inspection. Again there are areas that measured the proper 1” to 7/8”; however many measured ½” to 9/16” to 5/9”. These were around roof edges near skylights but some were in the field of the roof. Also Respondent’s repairs to areas of foam delamination and bubbling of the surface were not fully repaired. The area adjacent to the [fascia] at the NW side wall has an opening in it where water can enter. This has not been corrected. These areas were not corrected.

7. The areas of foam that extend up the masonry parapet walls did not get corrected or painted per the corrective order.

8. Second coat did not cover granules: Respondent did not cover the areas of the corrective repairs with granules as directed to in the corrective order.

During the course of the second onsite inspection, Valley agreed to replace the foam roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence. On or about February 20, 2014, Mr. Kennedy filed an affidavit with the Registrar that provided, in relevant part, as follows: January 17, 2014 [Valley] called me and said he would start removing roofing on Monday January 20, 2014. I told him that I would be out of town[;] I would call him when I returned. I called him on January 28, 2014.

He did not return the call until January 30, 2014. He told me he was doing a job in [Nogales], he would start the tear off the first of next week, February 3, 2014.

As of February 18, 2014 I have not heard from him. He knows how far he can go with [Registrar] without penalties. This complaint was filed in August 2013.[3]

On March 25, 2014, the Registrar issued a Citation and Notice of Hearing for this matter. Testimony of Registrar Investigator Phil Coscia Investigator Coscia testified that the Corrective Work Order was issued on September 23, 2013. Investigator Coscia testified that the Registrar received correspondence from Mr. Kennedy on or about October 10, 2013, indicating that Valley had failed to comply with the Corrective Work Order. Investigator Coscia testified that he performed a second inspection at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406 on December 23, 2013. Investigator Coscia testified that he confirmed that all of the items set forth in the Corrective Work Order had not been corrected. Investigator Coscia opined that Valley failed to comply with the terms of the Corrective Work Order. Investigator Coscia testified that the construction work performed by Valley on Mr. Kennedy’s roof failed to comply with professional industry standards. Investigator Coscia testified that during the December 23, 2013 onsite inspection, Valley agreed to replace the roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence. Investigator Coscia testified that he performed another onsite inspection of Mr. Kennedy’s roof on or about July 16, 2014. Investigator Coscia stated that the roof had been replaced by Valley. Investigator Coscia testified that the new roof failed to comply with professional industry standards. Investigator Coscia testified that there was a “tense argument” between Mr. Kennedy and Valley’s qualifying party/owner, David Allen Harris (hereinafter “Mr. Harris”), during the first onsite inspection. Investigator Coscia stated that Mr. Kennedy would not allow Valley’s foreman, Jose Carlos Garcia (hereinafter “Mr. Garcia”), to go on the roof to participate in the onsite roofing inspection. Investigator Coscia testified that the parties had a contentious relationship. Investigator Coscia stated that he was sick of the fighting. Investigator Coscia acknowledged that he did not take exact measurements when he tested the depth of the foam on the first roof. Investigator Coscia testified that he had a “good eye” for measurements and was certain that his estimates were correct. Investigator Coscia testified that Valley’s qualifying party, David Allen Harris, had been listed as a partner on License No. 090033, Class C-42 issued to Valley of the Sun Roofing, a partnership. Investigator Coscia stated that License No. 090033 was revoked by the Registrar pursuant to a default Decision and Order issued on September 12, 2003.[4] Investigator Cascia’s testimony is found to be credible. Testimony of Registrar Investigator Theodore William Gerold Registrar Investigator Theodore William Gerold (hereinafter “Investigator Gerold”) testified that on or about May 22, 2014, he performed a compliance inspection for the roof on the residence at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Investigator Gerold stated that he become involved with the matter because Investigator Coscia was on leave. Investigator Gerold testified that Valley had installed a new roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence. Investigator Gerold stated that he observed areas of poor workmanship on the new roof. Investigator Gerold testified that he observed foam over-spray and that some of the flashing was separating or “pulling away” on the new roof. Investigator Gerold’s testimony is found to be credible. Testimony of William Kennedy Mr. Kennedy testified that he is the owner of the residence located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was dissatisfied with Valley’s construction work on the new roof at his residence and that he retained a certified inspection service to inspect the construction work on his roof before he filed a formal complaint against Valley with the Registrar. Mr. Kennedy testified that his Consumer Complaint was based upon his dissatisfaction with the quality of Valley’s construction work on the first foam roof and the inspection service’s written report.[5] Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that Valley had removed the first foam roof on the residence at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406, and installed a new roof on the residence. Mr. Kennedy testified that on or about January 17, 2014, Valley contacted him stated that it would start removing the first foam roof on his residence on Monday January 20, 2014. Mr. Kennedy stated that he informed Valley that he would be out-of-town on that date but that he would call Valley when he returned. Mr. Kennedy testified that he called Valley on or about January 28, 2014. Mr. Kennedy testified that Valley did not return his telephone call until January 30, 2014. Mr. Kennedy stated that he was informed that Valley was constructing a roof in Nogales, Arizona, and that Valley would start the “tear-off’ of the first foam roof on or about February 3, 2014. Mr. Kennedy testified that because as of February 18, 2014, he had not heard from Valley, he asked the Registrar to proceed with the Consumer Complaint. Mr. Kennedy stated that he had filed the Consumer Complaint against Valley in August 2013. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he requested that Mr. Garcia not inspect his roof during the first inspection. Mr. Kennedy testified that that he wanted Mr. Harris to inspect his roof instead of Mr. Garcia because Mr. Harris is the owner of Valley. Mr. Harris denied ever denying Valley access to his roof. Mr. Kennedy stated that he “respected” and “praised” Mr. Garcia. Mr. Kennedy testified that Mr. Garcia said that he always worked for the homeowner rather than the contractor. Mr. Kennedy testified that Mr. Harris participated in the second inspection of his roof. Mr. Kennedy stated that during the second inspection, Mr. Harris acknowledged that the first roof was a bad roof. Mr. Kennedy testified that he always allowed Mr. Harris access to his property. Mr. Kennedy testified that Valley agreed to replace his roof to resolve his complaint with the Registrar. Mr. Kennedy stated that there were separations in the replacement roof and that the replacement roof was not satisfactory. Mr. Kennedy testified that he wanted to sell the residence located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Mr. Kennedy stated that he could not list the residence for sale until the roof was properly corrected. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he did not reside at the residence located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he had a written contract with Valley that provided for a five-year warranty.[6] Mr. Kennedy stated that the parties had a second written contract that provided him with a ten-year roof warranty. Mr. Kennedy testified that he had lost the second written contract. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he had left a note on a piece of plywood that he placed on his roof asking Valley not to work on his roof while he was out-of-town. Mr. Kennedy testified that he was taking care of his sick mother and that he did not want any corrective work performed on his roof while he was out-of-town. Mr. Kennedy stated that the “deadline” imposed in the Registrar’s directive had passed before he had placed the note on his roof. Mr. Kennedy testified that the note on his roof requested Valley to “please call for an appointment” to work on his roof. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he requested that the Registrar issue a formal citation against Valley’s license.[7] Mr. Kennedy testified that he “walked” his roof on October 6, 2013. Mr. Kennedy stated that he had inspected his roof on numerous occasions. Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that the first roof was complete when he issued his check to Valley on April 18, 2013.[8] Mr. Kennedy testified that he issued the check despite the fact that he was dissatisfied with the new roof. Mr. Kennedy stated that he informed a woman whom he believed to be Valley’s office manager of his complaint regarding the roof. Mr. Kennedy testified that he notified the woman of his complaint because he thought it would cause Valley to respond quickly to his complaint. Mr. Kennedy testified that he obtained an independent roofing report from Western States because he wanted its professional opinion of his roof.[9] Mr. Kennedy stated that he obtained Western State’s name from the telephone book and that he paid Western States $250.00 for roof inspection and written report. Testimony of David Allen Harris Mr. Harris testified that he is the owner and sole member of Valley. Mr. Harris stated that he has been involved in the roofing industry all of his life. Mr. Harris testified that he is a firm believer in the rule that a customer is always right even if results in a financial loss. Mr. Harris acknowledged that there were issues with the first roof that Valley installed on Mr. Kennedy’s roof. Mr. Harris testified that Valley replaced the roof rather than perform corrections on the first roof in an attempt to satisfy Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harris opined that the first roof could have been corrected. Mr. Harris testified that all of Valley’s business is from customer referrals. Mr. Harris testified that Valley had made consistent efforts to try and contact Mr. Kennedy and correct the problems with Mr. Kennedy’s roof. Mr. Harris testified that during the first onsite inspection, Mr. Kennedy informed Investigator Coscia that Mr. Garcia was not allowed on his property. Mr. Harris stated that he wanted Mr. Garcia to inspect the roof because he had actually performed the work on Mr. Kennedy’s roof. Mr. Harris testified that he was not willing to inspect the roof because he had recently had cancer surgery and was required to stay out of the sun. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Kennedy was “yelling” at the onsite inspection. Mr. Harris testified that Mr. Kennedy was angry, uncooperative, and very difficult to communicate with. Mr. Harris testified that after Valley received the Corrective Work Order, he attempted to contact Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harris stated that he left a telephone message for Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harris testified that when he was unable to reach Mr. Kennedy, he brought a crew of four men to Mr. Kennedy’s house on October 8, 2013. Mr. Harris stated that the four man crew spent the day performing corrections on Mr. Kennedy’s roof under Mr. Garcia’s direction. Mr. Harris testified that he thought the matter was resolved until he received notice that Mr. Kennedy had requested that a citation be issued against Valley’s license. Mr. Harris reviewed Valley’s October 11, 2013 response to the request for citation.[10] Mr. Harris stated that most homeowners have a “punch-list.” Mr. Harris testified that Mr. Harris had a five-year warranty on his roof as set forth in the parties’ signed contract.[11] Mr. Harris testified that Mr. Harris was constantly on the roof attempting to direct Valley’s employees. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Harris’ interference was disruptive. Mr. Harris testified that Valley received no complaints about the corrections on the first roof until Valley received notice of the December 23, 2013 onsite inspection. Mr. Harris stated that he inspected the roof for the first time on December 23, 2013. Mr. Harris testified that he informed Investigator Coscia that Valley would replace the roof. Mr. Harris stated that the offer to replace the roof was an attempt to satisfy a difficult customer, not an admission of guilt. Mr. Harris testified that he informed Mr. Kennedy that the new roof would be installed “after the holidays.” Mr. Harris testified that Valley attempted to replace the roof in January 2014. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Kennedy informed Valley that Mr. Kennedy was going to be out-of-town taking care of his mother and that Mr. Kennedy would contact Valley when he returned. Mr. Harris testified that he received a brief note that Mr. Kennedy had dropped off at a personal friend’s residence. Mr. Harris testified that woman whom Mr. Kennedy contacted was his personal friend, not an employee of Valley. Mr. Harris stated that the woman provided Valley with the note that Mr. Kennedy had left with her. Mr. Harris testified that Valley received no other communication from Mr. Kennedy before Mr. Kennedy filed his request that a citation be issued against Valley’s license. Mr. Harris testified that after the roof was replaced, Mr. Kennedy informed Valley that he was satisfied with the new roof. Mr. Harris stated that he asked for an informal settlement conference before the administrative hearing.[12] Mr. Harris testified that Valley has always been willing to perform any necessary corrections on Mr. Kennedy’s roof. Mr. Harris testified that Valley kept trying to address every issue that Mr. Kennedy brought up but that he “kept moving the bar.” Mr. Harris stated that Valley had requested that Mr. Kennedy sign a written acknowledgment that his roof had been replaced and that he was satisfied.[13] Mr. Harris testified that Mr. Kennedy declined to sign the acknowledgement. Mr. Harris testified that he was present for the July 16, 2014 onsite inspection that was performed on the replacement roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Kennedy pointed out some items on the new roof that required correction. Mr. Harris testified that most of the items were “very minor.” Mr. Harris testified that Valley was willing to perform corrective work on Mr. Kennedy’s roof. Mr. Harris stated that Valley was not aware that Mr. Kennedy was dissatisfied with the new roof until the July 16, 2014 inspection. Mr. Harris testified that Valley would have corrected the problems with the new replacement roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence if Valley had been aware of the problems with the new roof. Mr. Harris acknowledged that the corrective work that was performed on the first roof on Mr. Kennedy’s residence on October 8, 2013, was performed without the homeowner’s knowledge. Mr. Harris testified that he had believed that all of the problems with the first roof were corrected on October 8, 2013. Mr. Harris testified that when he was on Mr. Kennedy’s roof for the December 23, 2013, he observed some minor problems. Mr. Harris stated that he offered to replace the roof because it was obvious that Mr. Kennedy was not going to be satisfied with any corrective work that could be performed on the first roof. Mr. Harris testified that he thought replacing the roof with a new roof was the easiest way to resolve the problem. Mr. Harris stated that the December 23, 2013 inspection was a very short inspection. Mr. Harris acknowledged that Mr. Kennedy had paid Valley for its roofing work in accordance with the parties’ construction agreement. Testimony of George Parra George Parra (hereinafter “Mr. Parra”) testified that he is an employee of Valley. Mr. Parra stated that he had worked for Valley “on and off” for the last ten years. Mr. Parra testified that performed dry wall repair work at Mr. Kennedy’s residence. Mr. Parra testified that Mr. Kennedy was very loud and angry at the jobsite. Mr. Parra stated that Mr. Kennedy was “cussing up a storm.” Mr. Parra testified that Mr. Kennedy finally calmed down and that he was able to complete his work on the first day. Mr. Parra testified that on the second day he observed that someone had removed some of the drywall tape that Mr. Parra had installed on the first day. Mr. Parra stated that Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that he had removed some of the tape to check the drywall repair. Mr. Parra testified that Mr. Kennedy was satisfied with the completed drywall work when Mr. Parra left the jobsite. Testimony of Jose Carlos Garcia Mr. Garcia testified that he was an employee of Valley. Mr. Garcia stated that he had worked for Valley for over ten years. Mr. Garcia testified that he was the foreman for the roofing work that Valley performed on Mr. Kennedy’s residence located at 5302 W. Paradise, Glendale, Arizona 85406. Mr. Garcia testified that he supervised the installation of the first roof and the replacement roof. Mr. Garcia stated that he asked Mr. Kennedy for a final list of items with which he was dissatisfied on the new roof so that Mr. Garcia could ensure that the items were corrected. Mr. Garcia testified that Mr. Kennedy apparently was satisfied with the condition of the first roof when it was completed. Mr. Garcia testified that he gave Mr. Kennedy his business card and instructed Mr. Kennedy to contact him if he had any questions about the new roof. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Kennedy did not contact him with concerns or dissatisfaction about the roof. Mr. Garcia testified that Mr. Kennedy said things that were disparaging about Hispanic people. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Kennedy said “he was going to Home Depot and hire wetbacks to complete the construction work at his residence.” Mr. Garcia testified that it was a very difficult environment to work in. Mr. Garcia testified that Valley completed corrective work on all of the items set forth in the Corrective Work Order in October 2013. Mr. Garcia testified that Valley completed the new replacement roof in March 2014. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Kennedy instructed him to leave the tape on the skylights alone because Mr. Kennedy would correct the problem himself. Mr. Garcia testified that Mr. Kennedy never expressed any dissatisfaction to him about the new replacement roof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.[14] A preponderance of the evidence is “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). Investigator Coscia performed an onsite inspection on Mr. Kennedy’s roof and the Registrar issued a Corrective Work Order on September 20, 2013. The Corrective Work Order directed Valley to correct the leaking roof and water damage in Mr. Kennedy’s garage, to remove foam overspray from Mr. Kennedy’s air-conditioning unit, to correct the depth of the foam on Mr. Kennedy’s roof from ½ inch or less to the 1 inch required to comply with professional industry standards, to paint the elastomeric product that Valley had applied on Mr. Kennedy’s roof to match surrounding paint color, and to correct the elastomeric product application to the proper thickness. On October 15, 2013, Valley filed correspondence with the Registrar stating that all corrective work had been completed. Investigator Coscia performed a second onsite inspection on Mr. Kennedy’s roof on December 23, 2013. During the second onsite inspection Valley agreed to completely remove and replace the roof on Mr. Kennedy’s house. Valley installed a new roof on Mr. Kennedy’s house in March, 2014. Investigator Coscia and Investigator Gerold performed a third onsite inspection on Mr. Kennedy’s roof on July 16, 2014. Investigator Coscia testified that the new roof failed to fully comply with professional industry standards. Investigator Gerold testified that he observed foam over-spray on the new roof and that some of the flashing was separating or “pulling away” on the new roof. Valley did not establish that Mr. Kennedy refused reasonable access to Valley. This Tribunal concludes that Valley violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3),[15] namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108,[16] and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).[17] RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that License No. C- 42.186171-R and License No. L-42.186172-C of Valley shall each be suspended for a period of seven days. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, that Valley pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D). The failure by Valley to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Valley’s contractors’ licenses, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Valley, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification. Done this day, July 30, 2014.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] See Registrar’s Exhibit 2 (Consumer ROC Complaint). [2] See Registrar’s Exhibit 3 (Jobsite investigation notes, p.5). [3] See Exhibit No. 7 (Affidavit). [4] See Registrar’s Exhibit No. 9 (9/12/03 Default Decision and Order). [5] See Registrar’s Exhibit 2 (Consumer Complaint with attached western States Roofing Consultant’s Report). [6] See Respondent’s Exhibit R-1 (5/27/13 Proposal). [7] See Registrar’s Exhibit 6 (10/15/13 Letter). [8] See Registrar’s Exhibit 2 (Consumer ROC Complaint). [9] See Registrar’s Exhibit 2 (Western States Roofing Consultants, Inc., written roof report). [10] See Registrar’s Exhibit 6 (Respondent’s letter to ROC). [11] See Respondent’s Exhibit R-1 (5/27/12 Proposal). [12] See Respondent’s Exhibit R-15 (4/9/14 Letter). [13] See Respondent’s Exhibit R-16 (4/30/14 Letter). [14] A.A.C. R2-19-119 provides as follows: A. Standard of proof. Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. B. Burden of proof. Unless otherwise provided by law: 1. The party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement has the burden of proof; 2. A party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense; and 3. The proponent of a motion shall establish the grounds to support the motion.

[15] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar.” [16] A.A.C. R4-9-108 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

[17] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) provides as follows:

Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.

-----------------------

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