ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-07352-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-11-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
William Edelstein,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Reimagine Roofing, LLC
License No. ROC 332022,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-07352-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 2, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant William Edelstein appeared on his own behalf. Cody Landals and Keith Landals appeared on behalf of Respondent Reimagine Roofing, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Gregory Johndrow appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
FINDINGS OF FACT
Reimagine Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 332022 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Kody Landals is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and a member of Respondent.
In or about October 2022, William Edelstein (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent to remove and replace the roof on Complainant’s home encompassing the following scope of work:
Ultra Premium Fabric Reinforced Acrylic System
-Three course seal scuppers, penetrations, flashings, and membrane
imperfections on entire roofing system via GAF Hydro Stop Premium
Flashing + Polyester ply
Apply (2) layers GAF Premium Acrylic Hydro Stop Base Coating
-Apply (1) layer Polyester reinforcing casting membrane on entire roofing system
-Apply (2) layers GAF Premium Acrylic Hydro Stop Coating
-Waste Disposal Included
-20 Year Manufacturer's Warranty
-10 year workmanship warranty
ISO board installation
Install 3" ISO board to the entire roof
Tear off and install Dens Deck
Tear Off:
Remove existing roof system down to decking
Inspect Decking and Fascia:
Inspect for damages and replace as needed
Decking (cost plus $25) Decking plywood @ $65/ sheet - Fascia $15/lft after 16' included -
Charged separately
Install Dens Deck to Bare decking at 1/2"
Flashing:
Install all proper plumbing, vent, wall and drip edge flashing
Clean Up:
Clean and haul away debris
Remove Skylights
Remove Skylights and dispose
Frame in opening - Curb mounted skylight system with telescopic pole to open
Install decking over framing 6 total skylights
GAF NDL warranty
Warranty covered by GAF with certification
Custom 5" drip edge
Custom cut metal drip edge to be correct length with Iso boards - Color TBD
The contract price was $31,164.00.
On or about July 3, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. After a July 21, 2023 Jobsite Inspection, at which only Complainant was present, Investigator Johndrow issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated July 28, 2023, 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 August 14, 2023.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “City of Tucson permit not pulled for changing roofing material/type per contract”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. No permit has been obtained for this project, as required by the City of Tucson Building Department, for the type of work performed.
The Respondent is to obtain any and all required building permits from the Local Building Authorities prior to making corrections listed in this Directive.
If the local jurisdiction finds corrective issues relating to the respondent’s work, the respondent will be required to correct those issues by appropriate means. The respondent is required to submit a copy of the approved inspection results to the ROC Investigator.
Complaint Item 2: “Manufacturer’s warranty (GAF 20 year NDL) not obtained due to failed inspection per contract”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The manufacturer’s warranty has not been provided per contract due to the deficiencies identified by the manufacturer during the manufacturer’s site inspection.
Complaint Item 3: “Operable skylights not installed per contract”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Operable skylights have not been installed as specified in the contract.
Complaint Item 4: “Delamination of base fabric from decking in field”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the areas of inadequate adhesion of the base fabric in the field areas located throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 5: “Widespread debris under roof coating causing sharp protrusions, air pockets, and unsightliness”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 6: “Air pockets/delamination around mechanical fasteners spanning entire field of roof”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the mechanical fasteners. This condition was noted throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 7: “Air pockets/delamination around drip edge fasteners”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate adhesion of the roofing material around the fasteners for the drip edge metal. The condition was noted throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 8: “Air pockets/delamination where drip edge meets roof base”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the inadequate installation and adhesion of the drip edge metal against the roof base / deck. It was also noted that the fasteners for the edge metal were not installed according to manufacturer’s installation requirements.
Complaint Item 9: “Deflection of roofing materials”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the deflection areas of the roofing material. The conditions were located in multiple locations throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 10: “Tiger striping of roof coating”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the conditions noted in multiple areas throughout the roof. The condition presents as a bleed through of a darker color through the applied top coat.
Complaint Item 11: “Insufficient thickness of roof coating”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Documentation presented by the complainant from the manufacturer shows inadequate mill thickness of the finish coat.
Complaint Item 12: “Poor application of base coat fabric wrinkled, lifting, fishmouthing, delaminated, and/or folded in numerous areas”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 13: “Evidence of standing water due to poor installation of decking over iso board”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions in multiple locations located throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 14: “Overspray onto eaves and rafters”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant point it out and showed me the overspray on the eaves and rafters.
Complaint Item 15: “Damaged counter flashing during removal of old roof not replaced”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the damaged counter flashing, which has not been replaced or repaired.
Complaint Item 16: “L metal flashing not installed according to common practice”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. L metal flashing has not been properly secured to the wall or sealed at the ends.
Complaint Item 17: “Unsightly chimney flashing”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out the unsightly and inadequate flashing installed around the chimney.
Complaint Item 18: “Chimney flashing not installed according to common practice”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The unsightly and inadequately installed flashing around the chimney does not meet industry standard.
Complaint Item 19: “Paint on chimney sandstone bricks”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed paint on the sandstone bricks around the chimney.
Complaint Item 21: “Crickets missing from three skylights according to code”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are no crickets installed on the 2’x4’ skylights as required by code for this type of installation.
Complaint Item 22: “Drip edge factory paint coating damaged/removed (scraped off by workers after install in various areas across entire length of drip edge)”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions noted throughout the roof.
Complaint Item 23: “Drip edge overlap not installed to code”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The drip edge overlap does not meet the minimum code requirement.
Complaint Item 24: “Drip edge leaving exposed wood”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me a section of the drip edge which did not cover completely, leaving exposed wood. The location was noted on the back of the carport.
Complaint Item 25: “Wavy” and oil-canned visual drip edge”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the described conditions in multiple locations on the drip edge.
Complaint Item 26: “Landscape plants damaged by workers cleaning tools onto plants, overspray, and installation of roofing products”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions.
Complaint Item 27: “Landscape hardscape damaged by various roof application materials spilled onto bricks and rocks”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions.
Complaint Item 28: “Coax cord embedded in top coat”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions.
Complaint Item 29: “Screw protrusions through eaves in various spots”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions.
Complaint Item 30: “Replacement wood not installed with edge detail in spots”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. The chamfer edge detail was left off some of the wood trim replacements.
Complaint Item 31: “Replacement wood improperly installed to eave”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed me the described conditions. The unpainted 2x4 material used on the underside of the eaves is inadequately installed.
Reference Pictures: 119-120
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item 20: “Replacement cricket on chimney improperly sized”
Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified. In response to this complaint item:
There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108. The installed cricket will divert water around the chimney.
Reference Pictures: 66
Complaint Item 32: “Concern with scope of solution needed for remedying defects”
Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A).
All errors in original.
After the expiration of the time period specified in the Written Directive in which to perform corrective work, Investigator Johndrow ascertained that Respondent had not performed any further work on the project. Thereafter, Investigator Johndrow forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Johndrow testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Johndrow testified that he verified 30 of the 32 items of Complaint and provided 17 days for Respondent to perform corrective work. Investigator Johndrow testified that if Respondent had made a good faith effort to comply with the Written Directive and requested additional time in which to comply, he would have issued an Amended Written Directive extending the deadline for compliance. Respondent emailed Investigator Johndrow on August 14, 2023, the deadline date for compliance with the Written Directive. In the email, Respondent asserted reasons for non-compliance. Respondent did not request additional time in which to comply. On August 15, 2023, the day after the deadline date, Investigator Johndrow contacted Complainant via email and telephone and verified that no corrective work had been performed by Respondent.
Investigator Johndrow testified that Respondent failed to obtain a permit from the City for the work, notwithstanding the requirement to do so given the fact that Respondent removed and replaced a roof. Investigator Johndrow further testified that the manufacturer’s warranty for the roofing materials has not been provided as required by the parties’ contract, due to the deficiencies identified by the manufacturer during the manufacturer’s site inspection. Investigator Johndrow explained Respondent’s workmanship deficiencies with specificity during his testimony, and referenced photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection in order to illustrate those deficiencies.
Investigator Johndrow also testified that prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, Complainant requested a Building Confidence Inspection in an attempt to resolve the matter. However, Respondent did not attend that inspection either. Investigator Johndrow testified that Respondent made no attempt to perform any corrective work in the time leading to this administrative hearing.
Complainant concurred with Investigator Johndrow’s testimony.
Mr. Landals testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Landals testified that a former sales representative for Respondent underpriced the contract with Complainant by approximately fifty percent because he did not understand the scope of the project. Mr. Landals asserted that Respondent attempted to fulfill the terms of the contract at a loss. Mr. Landals testified that it was only Respondent’s second year in business, Respondent was experiencing “growing pains,” and that is why he was not present for any of the inspections, as his administrative staff did not inform him of the scheduled inspections. Mr. Landals further testified that this was Respondent’s first time installing this type of roofing system.
Mr. Landals testified that Respondent’s initial crew walked off the job due to conflicts with Complainant. Consequently, Respondent brought in its “best crew” to install the roof, and Mr. Landals asserted that they were again “disrespected” by Complainant. Mr. Landals testified that he offered to bring in a third crew, but by that point, Complainant had lost confidence in Respondent’s ability to fulfill the terms of the contract. Mr. Landals testified that he offered Complainant a full refund and that Complainant currently has a “fully waterproof roof.”
Mr. Landals testified that he did not contest any of Investigator Johndrow’s testimony or the findings contained in the Written Directive, and admitted to failing to obtain the required permit.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 15, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 332022 was first issued on January 22, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, zero resolved/settled complaints, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden to establish affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The credible and uncontroverted evidence of record established that Respondent: i) failed to obtain the required permit; ii) failed to obtain the manufacturer warranty; iii) failed to install the skylights as specified in the contract; iv) failed to install the crickets on the three skylights according to code; and v) failed to install the drip edge overlap according to code. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specifications in material respects without Complainant’s consent, resulting in prejudice to Complainant, and departed from or disregarded building codes in a material respect resulting in prejudice to Complainant, thereby violating A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b).
In this case, Investigator Johndrow found that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Johndrow determined the existence of workmanship deficiencies with the work that was performed by Respondent. Respondent did not contest the workmanship deficiencies verified in the Written Directive. 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, including Mr. Landals’ admission, established that Respondent did not complete the required corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. The Administrative Law Judge concludes based on the evidence of record that valid justification did not exist for Respondent’s failure to comply with the Written Directive. 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 Number 332022 for a period of seven (7) days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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 (30) 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, November 17, 2023.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
William Edelstein
[email redacted]
Reimagine Roofing, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff