ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2025A-06536-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-04-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dalia Zimmerman,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Titan Heating & Cooling, LLC,
License No. ROC 332867,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06536-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 26, 2026; record held open to March 16, 2026.
APPEARANCES: Complainant Dalia Zimmerman appeared on her own behalf. Ronald J. Morgan appeared on behalf of Respondent Titan Heating & Cooling LLC. Charles Hover III represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1 through 13; Respondent two post-hearing estimates.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) administers a Residentiary Recovery Fund (Fund). The Registrar’s Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination in this matter was Respondent’s appeal of the Registrar’s determination regarding Complainant’s Fund Claim.
2. On January 16, 2026, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above entitled matter for hearing. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to the parties at the addresses of record.
3. By ORDER dated January 28, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued its ORDER by email advising the parties the hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.
4. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Lauren Johnston, legal assistant, for the Registrar.
BACKGROUND
5. On July 2, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint form (Complaint) with the Registrar alleging poor work in installation of an air conditioner and other damages caused at her home. The Complaint indicated that the work began on June 29, 2025 and ended on July 1, 2025. The Complaint states:
I'm filing a complaint because since the company came out to install the AC unit they've broken parts of my house. the pipe the AC unit was installed improperly the unit froze over and the unit has not worked for the last 5 days since they installed it. it's leaking and there are multiple issues including a duct that was broken and a pipe tha
6. The Complaint indicated that the contract amount was for $8,829.00 and that Respondent had been paid $8,629.00.
7. The Registrar conducted an investigation into the Complaint. Registrar’s Investigator John Smith (Investigator) conducted a job-site inspection on July 2, 2025. Respondent did not attend. Investigator found that the air conditioner equipment as installed, or partially installed, was not functional. Investigator found that Respondent had started the work without a obtaining a building permit. Investigator found that Respondent’s contract lacked statutorily-required elements.
8. At the job-site inspection, Complainant informed Investigator that she had been notifying Respondent since June 29, 2025 that the air conditioning was not working and Respondent had not returned to resolve the issues; she indicated that Respondent had made an appointment for that morning of July 2, 2025, but never showed up.
9. Investigator determined that, pursuant to Policy 602, the situation demonstrated health and safety concerns because the air conditioning unit was not working and the outside temperature was in excess of 110 Degrees.
10. Investigator then forwarded the case to the ROC Legal process without the issuance of a written directive for the following reasons:
• The Complaint was submitted to the ROC 7/2/25.
• The complainant had been without A/C for three days.
• The ROC Jobsite inspection was conducted 7/2/25, prior to any modifications.
• For reasons of health and safety, the complainant hired a separate contractor.
11. On July 3, 2025, Complainant confirmed to the Investigator that a new HVAC contractor, Alaskan Air, had replaced the non-functional HVAC equipment and had restored air conditioning in her house.
12. On July 3, 2025, Investigator issued two warning letters to Respondent: one regarding Respondent having started the work without obtaining a building permit; and, one regarding Respondent’s contract and requisite statutory criteria.
13. On July 15, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(2)(B), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.
14. After Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation, the matter was forwarded to the Tribunal for an administrative hearing, after which the Registrar imposed discipline on Respondent’s license based on the recommendations in the Administrative Law Judge Decision.
RECOVERY FUND CLAIM
15. On October 20, 2025, Complainant filed the Recovery Fund Claim Form. Complainant submitted relevant information for consideration of the Fund Claim.
16. During review of the Fund Claim by the Registrar, Investigator provided the following information for consideration: there had been significant deficiencies with the equipment installed by Respondent’s, including “damaged, bent, twisted and sagging housing of the air handler housing and evaporative cooler housing.” Investigator advised that “replacement of the damaged and incorrectly installed equipment with new equipment is justifiable.”
17. On December 15, 2025, the Registrar notified the parties regarding the determined Administrative Award from the Fund. The Registrar determined that Complainant had sustained actual damages in the amount of $15,600.00.
18. On December 29, 2025, Respondent filed an appeal regarding the Award determination and requested an administrative hearing, arguing that the Award was excessively high.
19. Based on the hearing record, Complainant was eligible for a Fund Claim.
20. The Registrar’s witness testified regarding the appropriateness of the determined Award that was supported both by the administrative hearing record and by the Fund Claim.
21. Originally requesting a continuance, Respondent argued that it would submit estimates for the repair work that would not be as high and that some of the items replaced had nothing to do with his contract work. Respondent argued that Complainant had likely been preyed upon in obtaining the July 3, 2025 work.
22. Post-hearing, Respondent submitted estimates, and argued that his installation work had simply not been completed, that Complainant had been upset about the timeline, and that Complainant would not let Respondent return to complete the work. Respondent further argued that Alaskan Air did not provide Complainant with an estimate for repairing his incomplete work.
23. Post-hearing, the Registrar argued that the Award amount was appropriate and should be affirmed. The Registrar had reviewed the Respondent’s post-hearing estimates and Investigator noted that those estimates had not addressed deficiencies found at the job-site inspection, including the following: the permitting; repair of damaged gas line; repair to eliminate roof leak caused by removal of the chimney; repair of the refrigerant line that was not fully insulated; repair of the refrigerant line that had improper "sharkbite" fittings; repair of the condensate drain lines that had a negative slope; correction of the non-insulated ductwork; correction of the kinked ducts; summer pricing; emergency pricing; and non-contractor pricing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-11132.01(C) provides:
If the claimant paid a deposit or down payment and no actual work is performed or materials are delivered, the claimant's actual damages are the exact dollar amount of the deposit or down payment plus interest at the rate of ten percent a year from the date the deposit or down payment is made ...
The Registrar’s final decision in the underlying workmanship/disciplinary case giving rise to the instant matter establishes that Respondent performed no construction work and that Complainant had contracted directly with, and paid, trades who performed the construction work on the project.
When the Registrar has calculated the amount of a complainant’s actual compensable damages and has proposed a payout from the Fund to which a complainant is entitled, the calculation is a prima facie showing of the amount that a complainant is entitled to recover as a payout from the Fund.
Having appealed the Award, the Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the Registrar’s determination of eligibility for access to, and the determined payout from, the Fund is incorrect or inappropriate 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.”
After review of the hearing record and post-hearing submissions, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determination of the $15,600.00 Award amount was either improper or inappropriate.
The weight of the evidence shows that the Registrar correctly determined that Complainant is eligible for access to the Fund pursuant to statute and that the determined Award amount was not only justifiable but also appropriate, given the health and safety circumstances and significant deficiencies in Respondent’s installation. Consequently, the Registrar appropriately granted Complainant’s Fund claim.
After review of all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and that the $14,000.00 Award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $15,600.00.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED Respondent’s appeal is dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $15,600.00 to Complainant Dalia Zimmerman.
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, April 6, 2026.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
Charles Hover III
Assistant Attorney General
[email redacted]
Attorney for the Arizona Registrar of Contractors
Dalia Zimmerman
[email redacted]
Titan Heating & Cooling, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff