ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-14574-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

John Caputo,

COMPLAINANT

v.

ARIZONA SOLAR SOLUTIONS, INC.

DBA: Suntria,

License No. ROC 338348,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-14574-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 18, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant John Caputo appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Arizona Solar Solutions, Inc., doing business as Suntria, appeared and was represented by Michael Harris.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibit 2 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 5 were admitted.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondent Arizona Solar Solutions, Inc., doing business as Suntria (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 338348 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 17, 2018, John Caputo (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the installation of a solar system.

In January 2022, Complainant became aware that the solar system’s wires in the breaker box were “frying”. Complainant reached out to Respondent regarding the issue.

Respondent sent a tech out to address the issue. The tech moved the solar system wires to a different location in the breaker box.

In November 2023, Complainant noticed the relocated wires were starting to exhibit the same problem. Complainant reached out to Respondent again regarding the issue.

Complainant had some back and forth conversation with Respondent about a tech coming out to the property to attempt to correct the new issue. Complainant was advised someone would be there on December 26, 2023. No one showed on December 26, 2023.

On or about December 27, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Chester. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester issued a written directive 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 16, 2024.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: Overheating of electrical panel resulting in damage of electrical panel. Noticed issue on Jan 2022 contacted Suntria on Phone and email sending pictures of the issue. Suntria sent tech out and moved the breaker up a slot with no answer to, or correction of why it was occurring.. Nov 2023 noticed new location of breaker was doing the same. Contacted Suntria via phone on Nov 22,2023 and asked to send pic to email. Told Francine at Suntria I was at the point of having my electrician to replace the panel and charge Suntria for the work. I was then left a voicemail on 12/1/2023 that field Support Eddie Calo was notified of this issue but was in Texas and will call me on Monday 12/4/2023. I send a text to the number the voicemail was from back stating Being out of town doesn't justify not calling me, that my electrician will send over the cost of replacing the panel as it was damaged by their workmanship and contacting the ROC over the issue. Never received a call from Eddie I then called Suntria again on 12/13/2023 and talked to Francine and she acknowledged she received and read the text sent to the number. 12/23/2023 I received a missed call from a Suntria Tech telling me he would be out on 12/23/2023 I let him know rain was in the forecast and questioned if he was a licensed electrician he said only the Suntria account. The tech then stated he would be out 12/26/2023. I sent him the pictures of the breaker. 12/26/2023 no contact from tech. I text tech and Francine if i was scheduled for the day and no reply. I wanting the panel to be replaced and troubleshoot the issue as to why this is occurring. I have been lucky enough that my house has not burned down from the issue at hand. This issue has caused two slot on my panel to not be able to be utilize in the [future].

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of inspection, investigator verified that the last two breaker connections were burned and the new location where the breakers are is starting to melt, respondent will need to fix by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not contact Complainant regarding the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Chester was notified no corrective work had been performed.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Chester testified that he determined the issue related to the solar system as the old breaker location melted and, after those were moved, the new breaker location started to melt. Investigator Chester stated that the citation for abandonment was premised on Respondent’s failure to contact Complainant following the written directive.

Complainant testified that the only issue with the breaker box were at those locations related to the solar system. Complainant maintained that the issue had to be related to the solar system as he had no issues prior to those involved in the complaint. Complainant indicated that Respondent eventually reached out to him in March 2023 regarding this issue, but denied any contact prior to the deadline in the written directive.

Justin Coonrod, Respondent’s Qualifying Party, testified that work on the project was completed on November 22, 2018. Mr. Coonrod asserted that the actions taken in January 2022 was not “work” on the project, but was troubleshooting an existing issue. Mr. Coonrod argued that the issue Complainant was experiencing was not due to Respondent’s actions, but was because the panel was approximately 20 years old.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 7, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 338348 was first issued on May 23, 2022, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and one resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.

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 Vazzano 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 evidence failed to establish that Respondent abandoned the project. Respondent’s failure to contact Complainant regarding the instant Complaint, if established, would be accounted for in a separate alleged violation. Accordingly, Respondent did not abandon the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

Respondent attempted to distinguish its original work installing the solar system in 2018 from the actions taken in 2022 to address the issue as it occurred. Respondent asserted that the Registrar could not find a workmanship violation because the original installation occurred more than two years prior to the complaint being filed.

Respondent’s argument fails. Had Respondent failed to take any action in 2022, a complaint at that time would have been untimely. However, Respondent willingly elected to perform additional work Complainant’s home. That work then, was subject to the two-year statute of limitations.

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the additional work on 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 that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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. 338348 for a period of three 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 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)(5), 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, August 7, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

John Caputo

[email redacted]

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Michael J. Harris

Sacks Tierney P.A.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff