ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-03160-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-08-21
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Tyler Peterson,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Murray Renovation LLC
License No. ROC 324399,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-03160-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 6, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Tyler Peterson appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Josh Schurr appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Murray Renovation LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Edwards appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-28 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-2 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Murray Renovation LLC, (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 324399 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about February 24, 2023, Tyler Peterson (Complainant) and Respondent entered into a contract whereby Respondent would install LVP flooring in Complainant’s home due to an insurance claim.
On or about March 16, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the present complaint to Investigator Daniel Edwards. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 1, 2024.
Investigator Edwards then issued a Written Directive on or about April 10, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 May 3, 2024.
...
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Concrete foundation chipped out in an attempt to level floors, not fixed or leveled correctly
Investigator’s Observation: Product appears to be Lux Flooring – SPC vinyl plank (Pacific Acres collection, color: Beach). Per the manufacturers installation instructions, "All subfloors including concrete substrates must be flat 3/16” in 10’ or 1⁄8” in 6’." At inspection, a 6' straight edge was utilized and it was observed that the floor flatness appears to vary my more than 1/8" in spans less than 6' throughout the home. Examples where floors appear to vary >3/16" were observed as well. Complainant pointed out a specific area in the kitchen where concrete repairs took place which appears to be out of spec and does not appear flat enough. Respondent shall ensure the subfloor complies with the manufacturer's installation requirements by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar;
Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Compliance Item: 2 - LVP or resilient floors placed directly on concrete slab without any sort of notice that this would have bad results
Investigator’s Observation: Per the manufacturer's installation instructions, "CONCRETE SUBFLOOR REQUIREMENTS: Minimum of 6 mil black vapor barrier overlap 6" and up 6" on stem walls and properly sealed & or taped, with no exposure to the earths/or grade." Respondent shall ensure installation includes the required vapor barrier by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar;
Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Compliance Item: 7 - Incorrect spacing per manufacturer around edges not allowing for expansion/contraction
Investigator’s Observation: Per the manufacturer's installation instructions, "Use spacers along each wall to maintain an expansion of space of 5/16” to 3⁄8” in between the wall and the flooring." It does not appear that an adequate expansion space is present in some areas (such as the rear slider door and beneath the dishwasher in the kitchen). Respondent shall ensure adequate expansion space is provided per the manufacturer's requirements by appropriate means. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar;
Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner...
(All errors contained in the original).
Investigator Edwards conducted a Compliance Jobsite Investigation on May 15, 2024. In his notes regarding the same, Investigator Edwards noted the following in pertinent part:
Compliance Findings:
At compliance inspection the following observations were made:
• Compliance item no. 1 – The area in the kitchen located between the kitchen island and fridge appeared to vary in flatness by >1/4” in a span of 6’ (manufacturer requirements call for no more than 1/8” variation in a 6’ span and no more than 3/16” variation in a 10’ span). All other areas inspected appear to be within the manufacturer’s specifications. Due to the area between the fridge and island being out of spec, this issue appears to be unresolved.
• Compliance item no. 2 – A vapor barrier has been installed, per all parties. Complainant has concerns that portions of the barrier may not have a sufficient overlap, however, the barrier is beneath the vinyl floorcoverings and unable to be inspected. I am currently unable to verify that an actionable issue exists related to this compliance item at this point in time.
• Compliance item no. 7 – The sections of flooring adjacent to the front door and back door do not appear to have a sufficient expansion gap (manufacturer calls for a gap of 5/16” to 3/8”). Work does not appear to comply with manufacturer specifications and this item appears unresolved.
In summary, compliance items 1 and 7 appear to be unresolved as of the date of compliance inspection.
(All errors contained in the original).
On June 3, 2024, 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 June 6, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about June 19, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 6, 2024, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Edwards testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings from his inspections.
Investigator Edwards testified that he would not lift up the flooring to determine if the vapor barrier was correctly installed, but testified that both parties admitted it was installed.
Further, Investigator Edwards testified that the flatness of the floors between the kitchen island and the refrigerator were not with the manufactures specifications.
Finally, Investigator Edwards testified that there was no correction of the incorrect expansion gap by the front door and back door.
Complainant testified that while Respondent had the manufacturer come out to inspect, they found that the installation was incorrect and voided the manufacturer’s warranty.
Complainant also testified that Respondent waited until April 22, 2024 to have the new flooring delivered, and then it had to sit for 3 days. Because of this, Respondent did not complete the corrective work until May 7, 2024.
Further, Complainant testified that the vapor barrier overlapped 2 inches rather than the required 6 inches, and that Respondent would not have even completed the same without being directed to by Investigator Edwards.
John Schnurr testified on behalf of Respondent. He testified that he made mistakes throughout this process. He further testified that as the General Contractor, he hired third parties with the knowledge and experience to handle his flooring jobs, as Respondent does not have in house employees who handle flooring.
Mr. Schnurr testified though that he will no longer use the subcontractors due to the poor work that was done on Complainant’s floor.
In addition, Mr. Schnurr testified that he has ripped up the floor two times and has tried to level the surface as much as possible.
Ms. Schnurr testified that he did not supervise the subcontractors work because the insurance company does not pay for supervisor hours, only “overhead” expenses. Further, Mr. Schnurr testified that he was not aware who was out at Complainant’s house performing the work.
Finally, Mr. Schnurr testified that he still was willing to make the additional repairs as needed on Complaint items 1 and 7.
Seth Huffman testified for Respondent as well. He works for Envision Interiors and he disputed that vapor barrier overlap needed to be 6 inches as the way he read the manufacturer’s instructions was that requirement was for crawl spaces. Mr. Huffman testified that he was on the project the first day of the corrective work period, and had his crew chief present the other days.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 21, 2024. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 324399 was first issued on April 30, 2019, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one “Resolved/settled” 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 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work, was not completed 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 complete items 1 and 7 the following the Directive being issued. While the tribunal appreciates Mr. Schnurr’s argument that the general contractor was not being paid supervision hours by the Complainant’s insurance company, it does not mean that he should not have followed up on the first corrective work, let alone once the Registrar became involved. While the tribunal also appreciates that contractors make mistakes, Mr. Schnurr continued to not place Complainant’s project as a priority and continued to blame every different installer for the poor work instead of being present and observing the work firsthand. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action on Complaint items 1 and 7, 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. 324399 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, August 21, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Murray Renovation LLC
[email redacted]
Tyler Peterson
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff