ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-10903-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Michael J Crawford,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Rafael Tovar Roofing Corp
License No. ROC 323277,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-10903-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 5, 2025 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Michael J. Crawford on his own behalf; Rafael Tovar on behalf of Respondent Rafael Tovar Roofing Corporation; Investigator David Cooke on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contactors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”); Complainant Exhibit.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Rafael Tovar Roofing Corporation (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 323277 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
Michael J. Crawford (“Complainant”) wanted to add solar to a residential property he owned, which was located in Tucson, Arizona. However, Complainant could not add solar panels to a foam roof, so he looked for a contractor to replace the roof. On or about April 25, 2024, Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent for the removal of the current foam roof and the installation of a 3-ply Built Up ReRoof.
The total amount of the contract was $29,300.00 and work began on April 25, 2024. Part of the contract included Respondent disconnecting and reconnecting the air conditioning units (“HVAC”), which were rooftop units. Shortly after work began, Complainant decided to have his HVAC team disconnect and reconnect the HVAC units and not contract that task with Respondent. Respondent accepted and credited Complainant $2,000.00 for this task. The work was completed on May 6, 2024.
On or about June/July 2024, a monsoon hit Tucson, and during this weather event, the roof leaked water inside of the property. Complainant communicated with Respondent’s superintendent on the leakage issue. The superintendent was present for the entirety of the project but Complainant was unable to get the matter resolved.
On or about September 18, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar initially assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Springer. Investigator Springer set up a jobsite inspection on November 27, 2024, Respondent was not present.
After a jobsite inspection, on November 29, 2024, Investigator Springer 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 December 16, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 – Water pooling underneath A/C Unit.
Investigator’s Observation: Excessive water pooling under A/C. Additionally, channel that allows water to escape to scuppers is approximately 1 inch higher than area where pooling is occurring causing water to back up. Area next to duct work is missing roof coating.
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. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, on December 16, 2024, the deadline date, Rafael Tovar on behalf of Respondent, performed some work on the roof. On December 19, 2024, the Registrar transferred the case to Investigator David Cooke. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Cooke was notified that some work was performed, and he set up a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on February 10, 2025.
Respondent was not present at the Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Cooke notated that the complaint item was not corrected and added the following Compliance Observation:
Evidence of excessing pooling was still evident at the compliance jobsite inspection. Although the channel that allows water to escape showed evidence of repair, dried water residue indicates it is still too high. Lastly, the area next to the duct work is still missing the roof coating.
On March 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Hearing Evidence
Investigator Cooke testified that although he could see that some work was done to the masonry channel for better water flow, there was still evidence of water pooling under the HVAC units and the roof coating was still missing in some areas.
Complainant testified that Mr. Tovar appeared at the property on behalf of Respondent on December 16, 2024, the deadline directive date, and was only on the roof for approximately 15 minutes. Complainant testified that Mr. Tovar was never at the worksite prior to December 16, 2024.
Mr. Tovar argued that Complainant had workers install solar power, a water heater vent and skylight and that interfering work voided the warranty. Complainant testified that he did have a skylight installed around the time the roof work was performed but that task did not affect the channel or any water pooling under the HVAC units.
Mr. Tovar testified that Respondent’s proposal which was provided to Complainant contained a disclaimer that stated:
Disclaimer: No warranty is provided on leaks originating from stucco or windows. Homeowner responsible to cover any goods inside if exposed ceiling is an issue at time of re-roofing. Any low spots or ponding problems are to be corrected by others prior to re-roofing unless noted in the proposal by our firm.
Mr. Tovar argued that Respondent was not responsible for any pooling of water, per the above disclaimer, and because the pooling more than likely existed prior to the re-roofing job began. Complainant testified that prior to Respondent removing the old foam roof there was never any pooling or leaking of any water. Complainant further testified that the disclaimer was just a way for Respondent to absolve themselves from unprofessional work. Investigator Cooke confirmed that it would be extremely difficult for Complainant to identify low spots prior to the re-roofing job.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 5, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. ROC 323277 was first issued on January 16, 2019, and is Active.
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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Although some work was done by Respondent, complaint item one was not completed. In addition, Respondent’s disclaimer is problematic because if Respondent noticed there could be a water pooling issue while it was scraping off the old foam, it should provide this information to Complainant and provide the customer with options. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
In this case, the evidence established that Respondent did not complete all of 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 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 323277 for a period of two (2) days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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, May 27, 2025.
/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]
David Cooke
[email redacted]
Rafael Tovar Roofing Corp.
4525 E Skyline Dr Suite 113
Tucson, AZ 85718
[email redacted]
Michael J Crawford
1900 N Fremont Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85719
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff