ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2023A-0056X-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-10-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Iftequar Siddiqui,

COMPLAINANT

BMR Roofing LLC

License No. ROC 315752,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-0056X-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 16, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Iftequar Siddiqui

Respondent: Corey Larson, Esq.

Shemielee Sinclair Aguilar

Registrar of Contractors: Charles Hover III, Assistant Attorney General

Gail Mathews

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-20. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

BMR Roofing (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 315752 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 29, 2017.

On or about December 20, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Iftequar Siddiqui (Complainant) alleging abandonment.

After an investigation a written directive was issued to correct the work. The Directive from the Registrar specified:

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item: 7 - "Improper installation of multi-piece wet set clay tile roof system"

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Upon inspection at the JSI and/or addendum JSI the complainant said that tiles had not been fastened/nailed and showed me two different tiles that had not been fastened/nailed down. -Respondent to remedy all areas of roofing system where this condition is present

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, and an administrative hearing was held. In their Decision, Administrative Law Judge Jenna Clark considered Respondent’s arguments and concluded that Complainant established Respondent had, in relevant part, violated A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and 1154(A)(22). The Administrative Law Judge recommended a seven day suspension of Respondent’s license.

On or about February 21, 2024, the Registrar issued its Final Decision, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision in full.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (the Fund) to recover the cost of completing or repairing the project. As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors to correct the project.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s compensable actual damages were $30,000.00. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high because it was based on the cost of a total replacement instead of a repair. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on September 16, 2025.

Gail Mathews testified, on behalf of the Registrar, that Complainant was eligible and followed all of the steps required to receive an award from the Fund. She testified in support of the documents and calculation provided in the exhibits. She testified in support of Complainant being entitled to a $30,000.00 award. On questioning, Ms. Mathews noted that the TKG report referenced in the underlying ALJ decision, which advised that tiles would need to be replaced, was considered in the Registrar’s determination of actual damages. Ms. Mathews acknowledged that the investigator opined that the two bids received by the Registrar from Complainant were excessive in scope. However, Ms. Mathews explained, the two bids were subsequently rejected and a receipt of work actually performed by a separate licensed contractor was instead used to determine actual damages. Mr. Hover argued that the dispute at issue was only what work was required to fix the complaint items and that support for the work completed was found in the earlier referenced TKG report which was authored by an engineer.

Complainant testified that he contacted multiple contractors who refused to work on the roof without using their own materials. He found a contractor (Lyons) who provided bids for two different types of tiles (the Spanish tile at issue and a concrete tile) and he chose the least expensive option.

Shemielee Aguilar Sinclair testified, on behalf of Respondent, that at issue were Spanish tiles that were part of a two-piece system (pan tile and cover) which were reusable. The tiles had a life expectancy of 50-100 years and could be reused three to four times. Prior to the sale of the property to Complainant, Respondent replaced only the underlayment of the roof and reused the same tiles. The process Respondent used in replacing the underlayment of Complainant’s roof involved removing all the tiles, saving as many as possible, replacing the underlayment, and then replacing all the tiles, fastening three courses around the edge. This process required special equipment that allowed one to walk on/around the tiles without breaking them. Respondent argued that it was responsible only for the cost of correcting that which was cited, and in this case was limited to “a nail in each tile and to straighten the tiles.” Respondent further argued that the Registrar made many assumptions and the actual appropriate amount required to correct the complaint items was unknown, and therefore, Respondent should not be responsible for any amount.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

In Arizona, when construing statutes, we look first to a statute’s language as the best and most reliable index of its meaning. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and apply it without using other means of statutory construction, unless applying the literal language would lead to an absurd result. Words should be given “their natural, obvious, and ordinary meaning,” unless defined by the legislature.

If work is not completed to workmanship standard, it is reasonable for a bidding contractor to include removal of prior work. The bidding contractor is not obligated to accept the condition of existing work.

Respondent had an opportunity to inspect and correct the faulty work following the written directive from the Registrar and failed to do so.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the award provided by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant was entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, October 6, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Ruiz

Munger Chadwick, P.L.C.

[email redacted]

Corey B. Larson Esq.

Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Henshaw and Villamana, P.C.

[email redacted]

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff