ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-04792-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Keith Senn,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Quality Overhead Door Incorporated

License No. ROC 310144,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-04792-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 14, 2024

APPEARANCES: Keith Senn, Complainant; Ryan Bailey, Attorney Representative on behalf of Respondent; Joani Admanson, Director/Qualifying Party for Respondent; Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto was not present at the hearing.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Amended Notice of Hearing Packet (Packet), Respondent Exhibits 1-4.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Quality Overhead Door, Incorporated (Respondent) is the holder of License No. ROC 310144 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about August 18, 2023, Keith Senn (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, installation of garage and overhead doors. The contract was for the installation of five garage or overhead doors all which were AMARR brand manufactured doors. The total amount of the contract was for $29,660.00 and the last day that work was performed was on January 4, 2024.

On or about April 26, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project. On or about June 14, 2024, Complainant filed an Amended Complaint against the Respondent. Complainant specified in the Amended Complaint that the “Contractor has been contacted multiple time [sic] to correct the issues and refuses to coordinate or communicate. Doors will not operate properly and is both a safety and security hazard. Overhead doors will not operate properly [sic] Details and design was not properly conveyed, wrong doors installed.” The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto.

A Jobsite Inspection was scheduled on July 17, 2024 with Investigator Di Alto. This Jobsite Inspection was rescheduled on July 22, 2024 and rescheduled a third time to July 29, 2024. On July 29, 2024, the Jobsite Inspection was conducted. On August 6, 2024, a Written Directive was issued to Respondent that provided as follows:

Complaint Item: 1 – Wrong Doors installed.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed that two 14’2” x 10’ doors, and one 12’2” X 10’ door that were not the AMARR model Vista 3552 specified in the proposal dated and signed August 18, 2023. It appears that the doors installed are from Elegant Custom Garage Doors & Gate, model #EL100. The Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Workmanship 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 change out the four Elegant brand manufactured doors that it installed to the contracted AMARR doors. The few differences in the brand doors included the thickness of the frame whereby the Elegant doors had 1⁄4” less framing than AMARR; and AMARR had a three-year warranty versus Elegant’s two-year warranty on specified doors. After the deadline in the directive expired on September 6, 2024, Investigator Di Alto was notified no corrective work had been performed by Respondent.

On September 19, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent spoke with Complainant regarding the similarities in the AMARR and Elegant doors. Respondent provided Complainant with representative contacts for both manufacturers to have a conversation about both products and their similarities. In regards to the contract, Respondent picked AMARR doors because it was the company’s main supplier. However, the AMARR doors were going to take longer to be delivered and Respondent made the decision to go with the similar product, Elegant, which had no significant delivery delays. Prior to making this decision, Respondent did not communicate with Complainant regarding the manufacturing change.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 14, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 310144 was first issued on December 13, 2016, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no open or prior complaints 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. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

In this case, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Although the AMARR and Elegant products were similar; they were not identical and had slight variations in the framing width and warranty coverage differences. Complainant provided evidence that the differences in these products was prejudicial to him and installed without his consent. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from the plans in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).

Furthermore, the evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. The feasibility in Respondent replacing four installed Elegant doors to AMARR doors has to come with a cost-benefit analysis which is not before this Tribunal. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. ROC 310144 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, December 4, 2024.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Quality Overhead Door Incorporated

1750 N. Rosemont Ste107

Mesa, AZ 85205

[email redacted]

Robert Di alto

[email redacted]

Keith Senn

21174 N 110th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85255-3388

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff