ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-00395-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Jay Curtis,

COMPLAINANT

Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC

License No. ROC 329913,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-00395-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 10, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Jay Curtis appeared on his own behalf. Robert Lubanko appeared on behalf of Respondent Pearl Epoxy Flooring. Arizona Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Hoover III appeared via Google Meet on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-17 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) issued License No. 329913 to Respondent Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC.

On or about April 25, 2024, Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent. Later, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to epoxy coating on the driveway at Complainant’s primary residence.

As a result of the workmanship complaint, on March 5, 2025, 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).

The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, and Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses Thompson issued a Recommended Decision.

The Registrar accepted the Decision on June 10, 2025.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (Fund) on or about July 23, 2025.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award on September 25, 2025, finding that Complainant’s was entitled to the statutory maximum payout of $30,000.00. Respondent timely requested a hearing on or about October 9, 2025. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for an evidentiary hearing.

After multiple continuances, the hearing was held on April 10, 2026.

The Directive from the Registrar specified that Respondent was to remedy two items on the project, namely:

Complaint Item: 1 - surface has grind marks, rock pops & pealing off joints filled & cut crooked cracks repaired incorrectly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed coating that appears to be cracking, peeling and chipped/spalled at several areas of the driveway. Control joints are poorly covered with recoating materials, and do not appear to be professionally done. There are multiple areas where runs and puddling of material are visible. Grind marks are present in several locations, and the existing concrete drive way is visible. I was the Investigator that performed the prior BCP performed on 07/11/2024, and I advised the Respondent that if a formal complaint was filed by the Complainant, that it was likely that a written directive would be issued for poor workmanship. The Respondent agreed that the work was substandard and stated that they would address the issues in the fall/winter when cooler weather permitted. 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.

Complaint Item: 2 - sewer cleanouts covered

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed what appeared to be plumbing cleanouts (quantity of 2) that were covered with driveway coating and were not accessible for servicing. 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.

...

Erika Hoskins, was a Legal Assistant II for the Registrar and reviewed Complainant’s Recovery Fund claim. Ms. Hoskins testified that she reviewed the underlying complaint, and bids submitted by Complainant in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Hoskins testified that Complainant had met the requirements for a Recovery Fund payout because he owned the property and lived in the same and verified this through review of the Deed and supporting documents. Further, Ms. Hoskins testified that Complainant paid a total of $16,484.49, which included direct payments to a supplier, and did not receive payout from Respondent’s bond company.

Ms. Hoskins testified that while Complainant initially supplied various bids covering the repairs, they were rejected due to the scope of the work not being commensurate with the project.

Next, Ms. Hoskins testified that Complainant submitted two additional bids, namely, Viking Concrete Coatings in the amount of $48,000.00, and Arizona Creative Surfaces in the amount of $52,287.00. Ms. Hoskins testified that she again reached out a Registrar investigator who opined, that while the Viking Concrete Coatings was the lower bid, it was not the same product for a driveway to be used. As to the Arizona Creative Surfaces bid, Ms. Hoskins testified that the investigator emailed her stating, “[t]his seems fine.”

Ms. Hoskins testified that based upon this recommendation from the investigator, she chose to move forward with that bid.

Based upon all of the information, Ms. Hoskins performed the following calculation:

Original Contract and change order price: $21,125.00

Less Payment on contract: - $16,484.49

Total unpaid balance: $4,640.51

Total Compensable Bid Amount: $52,287.00

Less the unpaid balance on contract: - $4,640.51

Compensable “Actual Damages”: $30,000.00.

Ms. Hoskins testified that because the Actual damages were greater than the maximum statutory payout, Complainant could only recover $30,000.00, and issued her Notice of Administrative Award accordingly.

Robert Lubanko testified on behalf of Respondent, and he vehemently denied that the bid used was comparable as the work was a completely different system than what he installed. Mr. Lubank testified that his contract was for a coating, whereas the bid used was for an overlay, which was a different product and process. Mr. Lubanko also testified that he was not given an opportunity to finish the project and would like to be given the opportunity for the same.

Respondent also presented the testimony of Robert Pecel who was a consultant for Respondent. Mr. Pecel testified too that the bid was not for a similar product thus it was not for actual damage or repairs.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(B)(1) provides that “[a]n award from the residential contractors’ recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor’s violation. Actual damages: 1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.”

Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent had ample opportunity to correct the driveway during the corrective work period and failed to do so. Further, the Registrar’s investigator, Administrative Law Judge and the Registrar of Contractors found Respondent’s work to not be performed in a workmanlike manner and was clearly more than Complainant being “unhappy” with the color of the product.

Respondent also failed to present any persuasive evidence as to why the process used by Arizona Creative Services was different and what the cost to make the repairs should have been, now that nearly two years have passed since the initial contract.

After reviewing all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that Respondent failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the award provided by the Fund did not accurately reflect Complainant’s cost to repair the project due to Respondent’s poor work and failure to initially correct the same. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payment from the Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $30,000.00.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, April 24, 2026.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Charles Hoover III

[email redacted]

Jay Curtis

[email redacted]

Pearl Epoxy Flooring LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff