ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2018A-1641-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2018-10-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 11, 2018, at 8:30 AM APPEARANCES: Nancy E. Kowalski (“Ms. Kowalski” or “Complainant”), Jerry Brown (“Mr. Brown”, Witness 1 for Complainant), Ron Sargent (“Mr. Sargent”, representative for Sargent Enterprises Inc. dba, Best All Around Roofing, “Respondent”), Richard Cobb (“Mr. Cobb”, attorney for Respondent), Jerry Conrad (“Mr. Conrad”, Witness 1 for Respondent) and Tara Potter (“Observer”, for Respondent). TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE: Arlo Houston (“Investigator Houston”, investigator for the Registrar of Contractors, “ROC” or “Registrar”). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Linda Marie Brown _____________________________________________________________________

A hearing was convened pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092, et seq., in response to a Citation issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) against the license of Sargent Enterprises Inc. DBA: Best All Around Roofing (“Respondent”) for alleged violations as set forth in the Citation. Based on the testimony and evidence in this matter, the ALJ makes the following findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. According to the Registrar of Contractor’s (“Registrar” or “ROC”), on or about March 5, 2006, License No. CR42.217483-D for Specialty Dual Roofing was issued to Respondent. Ronald Lee Sargent is the Qualifying Party/Member.[1] 2. On or about April 9, 2018, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar against Respondent alleging poor work. Nancy E. Kowalski (“Complainant”) listed nine (9) allegations against Respondent in her complaint. The Complainant stated a contract was entered on June 29, 2016, to install metal roofing, main house, located at the address of 3833 E. Hampton Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716. The total cost for the roofing install was $14,478.00. The Proposal and Contract provided a year labor warranty, 25 year KYNAR paint warranty, and 50 year metal roof warranty. Work started on July 30, 2016, and was completed on August 27, 2016.[2] 3. The Registrar assigned the complaint for investigation to Investigator Arlo Houston. Investigator Houston mailed a letter to the parties on April 10, 2018, notifying Respondent of the complaint and further advising that a jobsite inspection was scheduled for May 1, 2018.[3] On April 19, 2018, a second letter was sent to the parties advising that the jobsite inspection was rescheduled due to conflicts. The new inspection date was May 15, 2018.[4] Separate letters of possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) were also sent to Respondent to include a warning letter dated May 23, 2018, noticing Respondent of a violation of A.R.S. § 1158(B) missing elements of a contract, and another warning letter dated May 30, 2018, alleging Respondent failed to obtain the necessary permits for this project.[5] 4. A jobsite inspection was conducted on May 15, 2018. Both Complainant and Respondent were present. Of the nine (9) complained of items, three (3) were substantiated by Investigator Houston. During the inspection, Investigator Houston took photographs of his findings. Investigator Houston also noted in his inspection report that per the City of Tucson Development Services Department, the installation of a metal roof required a permit for which Respondent is in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2).[6] 5. On May 31, 2018, Investigator Houston issued a Directive to Respondent noticing it that the Registrar substantiated the following workmanship issues and to remedy by appropriate means, to include an acquired building permit as obtained from the local building authorities, the following items: “(1) the (roof penetrations) are sealed with caulking material, not rubber bellow style boots. The caulk had dried, cracked, and lost the ability to “flex” with the metal panels; (2) no flashing was installed around AC/heater downdraft; and (3) no flashing was installed around porch skylights.” [7] Respondent was provide a completion date of June 18, 2018. 6. On June 19, 2018, Investigator Michael Springer sent a letter to the parties advising that a Compliance Inspection was scheduled for June 29, 2018.[8] 7. A Compliance Inspection was conducted on July 3, 2018, by Investigator Houston. Complainant was present but Respondent was not. Investigator Houston noted from his observations the following: “(1) . . . work done for this item does not meet workmanship standards and is incomplete. Roof jacks/rubber boots not installed over several penetrations, not all roof jacks/rubber boots installed to manufacturers specifications (either missing zip ties at top, metal crimper on sides, or both), and several vents/penetrations missing transition metal and/or flashing; (2) . . . Work done for this item does not meet workmanship standards and is poorly done. Foil duct tape installed over parts of metal roof to downdraft duct transition and some areas of metal roof to downdraft duct transition not sealed; (3) . . . Work done for this item does not meet workmanship standards and is poorly done. Gaps present between flashing and metal roof.”[9] Several photographs were taken by Investigator Houston during this Compliance Inspection.[10] 8. On July 18, 2018, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent’s contractor’s license, charging cause to revoke or suspend the license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) for [v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar. The alleged violations were: Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108 minimum construction standards; Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically 32-1158(A) violation of any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars requirements; and Charge 3: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter . . . absent valid justification within a reasonable time after receipt of a written directive from the registrar.[11] 9. On July 30, 2018, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to the parties advising that a hearing is scheduled on September 11, 2018, at the Office of Administrative Hearings.[12] Hearing Evidence 10. At hearing, both Complainant’s Exhibits A through F and Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 20 were admitted into evidence without objection. Both parties offered testimony, presented expert witnesses, as well as receiving Investigator Houston’s testimony on behalf of the Registrar.

11. Complainant stated in her opening statement that during this hearing she will prove there are existing workmanship issues and safety concerns with her roof installed by Respondent. 12. Richard Cobb (“Mr. Cobb”), counsel for Respondent, offered a copy of Respondent’s revised contract to remedy Charge 2 of the citation by incorporating edits to include buyer’s phone number, buyer’s email, and estimation completion date to its contract.[13] 13. Mr. Cobb stated that the allegations being raised today tend to stretch beyond the scope of the complaint/citation, and that Complainant is attempting to bring in items that are not on the complaint or citation. He further stated that the purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the charges raised against Respondent are valid, and that the Tribunal does not have subject matter jurisdiction over some of the issues Complainant is attempting to bring forth today.[14] 14. Mr. Cobb set forth Respondent’s perspective on the questions to be heard in regards to the scope of the evidence properly before the Tribunal, such as (1) whether or not when you have something come out of the roof it requires the item to be caulked or have a boot put on it; (2) whether or not duct work can be sealed when it goes into the roof with caulking or if something more is needed (in this case, it was caulking and then aluminum tape); and (3) whether the skylights have been properly flashed off.[15] 15. Mr. Cobb asserted that Respondent was denied access to complete the remedies. He stated that Respondent offered after the compliance to go and address the issues on the compliance report, even though he disagreed that the items we in need of corrective measures, but was denied access.[16] 16. Complainant called Investigator Houston as her first witness. Investigator Houston credibly testified in narrative format consistent with his findings from the Job Site Inspection, Compliance Inspection, communications received from the parties, and photographs he obtained at the time of both inspections. Mr. Cobb objected to the narrative format testimony in lieu of question and answer format even though he was advised he would be provided an opportunity to question the witness. 17. Ms. Kowalski asked Investigator Houston what standard is used in determining whether workmanship is adequate. Investigator Houston replied that the Registrar references the Arizona workmanship standards for licensed contractors. Additionally, the Registrar references administrative codes adopted by the agency; specifically, Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108, and the International Residential Contractors (“IRC”) (all of those referenced documents).[17] 18. Complainant questioned the Investigator regarding IRC R908.3.1 (1) Roof Re-recover for metal recovering and R908.6 Flashings. 19. Complainant read into the record from Section R908 of the IRC, R908.3.1 roof re-cover. “the installation of a new roof covering over an existing roof covering shall be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: (1) where the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer’s approved instructions,” AND R9.08.6 Flashing, “Flashing shall be reconstructed in accordance with approved manufacturer’s installation instructions.”[18] 20. Respondent objected to questions surrounding the IRC’s on the grounds the questioning is beyond the scope of the directive. Complainant stated that the purpose of referencing these IRC’s is that she attempted to obtain the name of the manufacturer from Respondent on four (4) occasions to provide the people evaluating her roof a chance to see if work performed matches with manufacturer specifications and Mr. Sargent has not been forthcoming with this information. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) asked Investigator Houston if he stated that the Registrar will use the IRC as a source of reference when evaluating workmanship issues, to which he replied, yes, the Registrar will use the IRC. Mr. Cobb argued that the referenced Code does not refer to the items listed in the Directive. Mr. Cobb’s objection was overruled based on the grounds that the IRC is used by the Registrar as a source to determine industry workmanship standards.[19] 21. Mr. Cobb questioned Investigator Houston regarding his experience as a roofer. He then questioned Investigator Houston regarding the Directive, and asked whether the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards references “boots”? Investigator Houston stated it does not. Mr. Cobb asked the Investigator whether he is aware of any particular code that says boots are, in fact, minimum workmanship standards to which he replied, not specifically. Mr. Cobb further questioned the Investigator about A/C heater flashings, specifically, whether the Registrar’s minimum workmanship standards references metal flashings on A/C duct work? Investigator Houston replied, no, it does not specifically reference that. And lastly, Mr. Cobb questioned Investigator Houston on the flashing around the port skylight and asked if the referenced gaps were double flashed, then would it be fair to say there would be no violation to which the Investigator replied, that would be fair.[20] 22. Investigator Houston testified that he did physically go on the roof during the Compliance Inspection and in his observations noted substantial changes since issuing the Directive and that Respondent added most of the roof jacks but there were several that were not installed. 23. Investigator Houston was questioned by the ALJ whether he has any recollection of Complainant denying Respondent access to address the issues listed on the Directive. The Investigator stated he doesn’t recall and that he would need to reference his notes. Investigator Houston was asked how long he has worked in the construction industry to which he replied he has 20 years combined construction experience. Investigator Houston was also asked that since his 2015 employment with the Registrar, how many of the complaints involve roofing issues, to which he replied about 20 to 25 percent of the complaints involve roofing issues.[21] 24. Mr. Cobb requested clarification from Investigator Houston on what is a roof jack/boot. Whether roof jacks mean different things for different instances? Investigator Houston explained the distinctions, and was further asked whether roof jacks is a slang term to which he replied, yes. 25. Complainant asked whether the term roof jack might be a specific term used in a manufacturer’s written direction for a specific type of flashing or penetration treatment to which he replied, he believes so. Ms. Kowalski asked if whether if in her contract with Respondent where it references “transition metal,” that term, “transition metal,” would be the same as flashing to which he replied, yes. 26. Mr. Cobb referenced Respondent’s Exhibit 13, item 36, wherein the notes indicated Respondent notified Investigator Houston of a text message received from Complainant stating “Ron, you have had 2 years and recently a clear directive from the ROC to remediate deficiencies in the job your company did. You have had ample opportunity to fix my roof, but it hasn’t happened. If you haven’t fixed my roof by now, I don’t think there is much use in having you try again.”[22] 27. Investigator Houston replied to Respondent advising that “as the Written Directive due date has expired the complainant is not required at this time, per the ROC’s complaint process, to allow you back on her roof.”[23] 28. Ron Sargent stated he has experience in the roofing industry since 1984, and testified that the purpose of flashing is to serve as a water diversion and that if improperly installed, the roof would be compromised and cause water to go inside. Mr. Sargent testified that the caulking used in this project is the best in the industry and will last for years. 29. Respondent was asked whether boots were required on a metal roof to which he replied you don’t have to, and that manufacturer’s only suggest and don’t require. 30. Complainant asked Respondent why wasn’t all the work complete to the penetrations as set forth on the Directive? Respondent stated that to the best of his knowledge it was complete. Mr. Cobb objected to Complainant’s questioning surrounding inquiry as to the manufacturer for materials used, and the ALJ overruled on the grounds it is relevant as Investigator Houston testified in respects to remedying the items listed on the Directive.[24] 31. Complainant called Jerry Brown (“Mr. Brown”) of WRECORP (Western Roof Evaluation Corporation) as her next witness. Mr. Brown provided his credentials to the Tribunal.[25] Mr. Brown referenced his Summary/Report that was prepared from his August 20, 2018, inspection of Complainant’s roof. [26] 32. Mr. Brown’s Report indicated that industry standards use National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and listed 14 issues he believed to not be in compliance with the NRCA standards. Included in his report were several photographs of Complainant’s roof he obtained during his inspection.[27] 33. Mr. Brown provided his in-depth testimony surrounding his findings. Mr. Cobb was provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Mr. Cobb asked whether the NCRA takes a more conservative approach than product manufacturer? Mr. Brown replied that he relied on the NCRA requirements because he was unable to obtain identifying information regarding the manufacturer used for materials applied to Complainant’s new roof installation. Additionally, the IRC also indicated manufacturer guidelines are relevant as it pertains to materials and installation. 34. Respondent called Jerry Conrad (“Mr. Conrad”) of Western States Roofing Consultants, Inc. as its witness. Mr. Conrad was knowledgeable and provided testimony regarding sizing of boots, and argued against Mr. Brown’s assertion found under No. 1 of his report wherein it states that all penetrations through the roof shall be a minimum of 8 inches above finished roof system.[28] Mr. Conrad further illustrated that the boots are intended to be cut as the boot samples he provided during his testimony did have cut-lines to allow an installer to custom fit the boot over a roof penetration. He also testified that clamping is required only if the boot is too big or too loose, and that plastic (zip-tie) or steel drawl strings are acceptable. 35. There was discussion surrounding the several photographs taken by Mr. Brown as attached to his Report. Mr. Brown provided a total of 30 photographs taken at the time of his inspection. Each photograph was labeled and carefully noted under its “description” his findings. This Tribunal takes specific notice to photograph nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 20, as they relate to flashing on skylights, and other roof penetrations, caulking that was used to seal in lieu of rubber bellows style boots, and missing flashing. [29] 36. Ms. Kowalski testified she has not been on the roof and has no knowledge of roofing but has an understanding that different manufacturers make boots. She did state that the roof is still under warranty as noted in the parties’ contract. 37. Mr. Cobb objected to portions of Ms. Kowalski testimony as it pertained to disclosure of manufacturer for materials used by Respondent on her roof stating that Respondent does not have to disclose.[30] 38. Respondent was questioned regarding whether a water test was performed on the roof, to which he replied, yes. Additionally, he added that no leaks were found. 39. In closing, Complainant again stressed that manufacturer details are essential as it pertains to specifics on manufacturer’s instructions and direction for installation, and that Respondent was given two (2) years to remedy and take corrective action for the asserted workmanship deficiencies, and failed to do so. Ms. Kowalski reiterated that access to the roof was permitted within the scope of the timeline set forth in the Directive. 40. Mr. Cobb stated in closing that the NRCA is the gold standard for workmanship issues, and that Investigator Houston is not a roofer. He reasserted that Mr. Conrad, a roofing expert, provided illustrations that boots do not need to be clamped if there is a snug fit and that Respondent used zip tie and caulk. He further stated that the HVAC flashing metal is not designed for screws, and that the skylights are self-sealing. Therefore, he asserts that Complainant failed to establish that Respondent’s license should be subject to discipline or sanctioned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[31] 2. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.[32] Respondent bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the penalty and affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.[33] 3. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[34] A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”[35] 4. The Citation issued alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically, A.A.C. R4-9-108; A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically, 1158(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(22). 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) (3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. One such rule in the Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. See A.A.C. R4-9-108. In this instance, the Tribunal finds that Complainant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that poor workmanship existed. Investigator Houston credibly testified as to his findings and noted during his testimony that the Registrar references administrative codes adopted by the agency; specifically, Arizona Administrative Code R4-9-108, and the International Residential Contractors (all of those referenced documents) as it pertains to workmanship standards and that during the Compliance Inspection alleged issues were observed as still existing in workmanship deficiencies, as set forth under the Written Directive, and duly noted in his Compliance Inspection Report. 6. Respondent acknowledged that it disagreed with the Investigator’s findings and that while it disagreed, Respondent still continued to address Complainant’s concerns as set forth in the Registrar’s Written Directive. While Respondent did provide credible witnesses in its attempt to prove that the workmanship employed for the installation of this roof meet minimum construction standards, this Tribunal relies on Complainant’s photographs and the photograph description as to the existing deficiencies as it pertains to items listed on the Written Directive, and further finds that photograph nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 20 are very telling of the workmanship deficiencies that exists as it pertains to caulking applied to various roof penetrations, short cuts of various boots, among other noted concerns that Complainant’s expert noted in the photograph description. Additionally, the photographs provided by Mr. Brown in his Report are fairly consistent with those provided by Investigator Houston as taken during his Compliance Inspection[36] and submitted by Respondent’s Exhibit 10. 7. This Tribunal strongly disagrees with Respondent’s argument that disclosure of the manufacturer is irrelevant and that disclosure of same is not warranted as the Complainant is making payment to the Respondent to ensure quality materials are being used on her property’s roof install, and requested this information on numerous occasions from the Respondent. To assert that manufacturer disclosure is irrelevant would be synonymous to finding it acceptable for a seller to accept payment on what the buyer may believe to be a Mercedes, and yet receives a Hyundai. Or requesting disclosure of what brand of oil is being used in an oil change. In sum, requesting release of manufacturer for materials used on the roof install that cost the consumer almost $15,000.00 is not an unreasonable request and the consumer has every right to demand from the seller information on what manufacture products or materials are being used on its property. Therefore, Complainant established cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108. 8. Respondent established that corrective action has been adequately taken to remedy any violations as cited under Charge 2 of the Citation. Therefore, no discipline is warranted for violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically, 1158(A). 9. Construction is not a perfect art and, generally, contractors must be afforded an opportunity to correct their workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked. Investigator Houston’s testimony established that Respondent received the Directive shortly after it was issued, and by Respondent’s own admission in its Exhibit 13, line item 37, Investigator Houston did advise Respondent that the Written Directive due date had expired and that Complainant is not required to allow Respondent back on her roof. Therefore, Respondent did not establish that it was denied access to continue to remedy issues that were set forth in the Registrar’s Directive. Therefore, Complainant established cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).[37] RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the final order in this matter, that Respondent, Sargent Enterprises Inc. DBA: Best All Around Roofing, License No. CR42.217483-D shall be suspended for a period of one (1) calendar day. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty. 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 five days from the date of that certification. Done this day, October 3, 2018.

/s/ Linda Marie Brown Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

----------------------- [1] https://roc.az.gov/contractor-search?Id=a0Yt000000ACZM4EAP [2] Registrar’s Records: Intake Complaint Submittal1. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [3] Registrar’s Records: Rcc012 Formal Inspection Jobsite1. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [4] Registrar’s Records: Rcc063 Re Schedule of Jobsite Inspection2. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [5] Registrar’s Records: Warning Letter Elements of a Contract 321158.B1 and Warning Letter Building Permit Contractor1 International Building Code Chapter 1, Sections R105 and 105. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [6] Registrar’s Records: Rcc100 Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [7] Registrar’s Records: Rcc014 Corrective Work Order1. ProLaw 07/28/2018. [8] Registrar’s Records: Rcc078 Compliance Jobsite1. ProLaw 07/28/2018. [9] Registrar’s Records: Rcc104 Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes1. ProLaw 07/28/2018. [10] Registrar’s Records: Insp Formal Complaint Miscellaneous1.pdf. ProLaw 07/28/2018. [11] Registrar’s Records: Lg Citation1.pdf. ProLaw 07/26/2018. [12] Registrar’s Records: Notice of Hearing. ProLaw 07/31/2018. [13] Respondent’s Exhibit 16. [14] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402: Position 6:57 through 8:22.

[15] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 8:23 through 9:21). [16] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 9:22 through 10:10). [17] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 14:49 through 15:30). [18] Complainant’s Exhibit A. [19] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 15:31 through 19:11). [20] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 22:06 through 23:52).

[21] 09/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 29:00 through 29:16). [22] Respondent’s Exhibit 13, line item 36. [23] Respondent’s Exhibit 13, line 37. [24] 9/11/2018 Hearing Transcript: Doc 659402 (Position 49:00 through 51:40). [25] Complainant’s Exhibit F. [26] Complainant’s Exhibit C. [27] Supra. [28]Complainant’s Exhibit C, Architectural Metal Flashing, Chapter 2- guidelines Applicable to Low-slope Roof System. 2.6 Penetrations. “For large round penetrations, such as an isolated stack flashings, NRCA recommends an 8-inch-high sheet-metal flashing sleeve with a 4-inch flange and sheet-metal collar.” P. 71 [29] See Registrar’s Directive dated 05/31/2018, and photographs attached to Complainant’s Exhibit C. [30] This Tribunal finds information regarding manufacturer for materials used on a property owner’s roof to be relevant as duly noted in Section R908 of the IRC to which the Registrar resources (Complainant’s Exhibit A.). [31] See A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). [32] See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [33] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2). [34] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [35] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999). [36] Particularly, photographs wherein Investigator Houston noted “pipejack/rubber boot not utilized on roof penetration, transition metal/flashing not utilized around vent, gaps present between metal roof and skylight transition metal/flashing.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 10). [37] A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license, “[f]ailure 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.”

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826