ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-11705-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-06-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Alan Lauschke,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Priority Roofing Company
DBA: Priority Roofing
License No. ROC 324307,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-11705-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 9, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Alan Lauschke appeared on his own behalf. Ricard Urcino appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Priority Roofing Company. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Joey Chester appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Priority Roofing Company (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 324307 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about October 5, 2022, Alan Lauschke (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent to install a new roof due to storm damage. The total contract price was $19,668.37.
On or about December 16, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint containing eight items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Joey Chester. The jobsite inspection was performed on January 9, 2023.
Investigator Chester then issued a written directive on or about January 12, 2023, to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 1, 2023.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Roofers dumped old shingles + tar paper + plastic bags down all my roof vents including kitchen exhaust fan.
Investigator’s Observation: All of the trash and debris had been disposed of properly, however the exhaust fan had particles from the shingles when turned on.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Contractor should fix by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 2: Roofers broke off 2 sprinkler heads.
Investigator’s Observation: Noticed that 3 sprinkler heads had actually been broken during inspection, Respondent acknowledge all 3 locations.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Contractor should fix by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 5: Roofers pulled up several pieces of wood underlayment boards and now have low sunken spot.
Investigator’s Observation: There is about a 1ft and half by 1ft and half square in roof lower where the eve of the roof is located.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Contractor will fix by appropriate means.
Complaint Item 8: Red mark on newly replace shingles – added at inspection
Investigator’s Observation: Respondent acknowledge spot and will address during directive.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. Contractor will fix by appropriate means.
(All errors contained in the original).
On February 23, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about February 27, 2023, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about March 23, 2023, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on April 26, 2023 at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
After a continuance, a hearing was held on June 8, 2023.
At hearing, Investigator Chester testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Chester testified that he performed a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on February 16, 2023, and found that there was still debris coming from the kitchen exhaust fan, and the roof still had a sunken spot, but the other items were repaired.
Alan Lauschke testified on his own behalf.
Mr. Lauschke testified that he suffered wind damage to his roof and needed the same repaired. Further, Mr. Lauschke testified that while Respondent repaired the damaged sprinkler heads, and the spray paint the other items were not repaired properly.
As to the debris in the vent, Mr. Lauschke testified that he can still hear items in the vent when it is operational. Further, Respondent offered him a $300.00 credit should Mr. Lauschke wish to replace the vent.
Mr. Lauschke also testified that where the roof is sunken in, he noticed Respondent’s workings may have pulled the underlayment out. In addition, he never heard from Respondent about fully repairing the roof.
Richard Urcino testified on behalf of Respondent. He testified that he has done approximately 1000 roofs in Sun City and they all had the similar “sunken” problem.
Mr. Urcino testified that he tried to repair the sunken spot but he did not believe it was really a roofing issue.
In addition, Mr. Urcino testified that he through the vent fan was repaired to Mr. Lauschke’s satisfaction, but nonetheless offered him a $300.00 credit should other problems arise.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 23, 2023. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 324307 was first issued on April 23, 2019, and reflected that there was one open complaint, namely the present complaint, and one disciplined and one resolved case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “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).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. There was debris in the kitchen exhaust fan, two sprinkler heads were broken; the roof had a sunken spot and there was red spray paint on the new shingles. Respondent did not dispute these claims. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. From the testimony presented, the vent fan still had debris inside, and the roof’s sunken spot was not properly repaired. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 324307 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 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 final 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, June 23, 2023.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Priority Roofing Company
DBA: Priority Roofing
14018 N 58th Ln.
Glendale, AZ 85306
Alan Lauschke
12910 W Allegro Dr.
Sun City West, AZ 85375
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff