ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07343-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Nancy Henry,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Arizona Skylight Specialists LLC,

License No. ROC 333554,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07343-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Nancy Henry appeared on her own behalf. Qualifying Party Marlene Elias, and Bill Elias, appeared representing Arizona Skylight Specialists LLC. Investigator Arlo Houston appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). Complainant submitted Exhibits 1 through 12. _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Arizona Skylight Specialists LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 333554, a CR-65 Glazing license, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in June 2021.

In June 2024, Nancy Henry (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for installation of three skylights in her home at the contracted price of $10,442.84. The work began on December 30, 2024, and was completed on January 7, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged poor work in the skylights’ interior wells not being properly sealed and showing gaps in tape and plastered finish areas. Complainant alleged that the result of the poor workmanship was that, after the June 2025 rains, water leakage had caused damage to the home’s interior walls and windows.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Arlo Houston, who scheduled a jobsite inspection for August 28, 2025.

Investigator Houston issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for an alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1158 for Respondent’s failure to include all nine required minimum elements in its written contracts, including its contract with Complainant.

Investigator Houston also issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for an alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16) for performing work which was outside the scope of Respondent’s license.

Both Complainant and Respondent were present at the August 28, 2025 jobsite inspection. Investigator Houston reviewed the Complainant items with the parties and took multiple photographs to document the poor workmanship and resulting conditions of the project.

On August 29, 2025, Investigator Houston issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which 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 Monday, September 22, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that

is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or

is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective

work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other

contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s)

has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

The Respondent is required to submit an updated version of a

contract template for future use to the Registrar that complies with

the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Complaint Item: 1 - - Skylights not properly sealed; leaked @ first rain -

Interior skylight wells not plastered - Dent on skylight exterior

Investigator’s Observation: Verified.

Upon inspection at this JSI:

-Respondent acknowledged that a skylight they had installed had an active water leak which they had attempted to repair the previous week.

-I observed for damaged drywall and damaged paint resultant from the active water leak from a skylight installed by the respondent.

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

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

Out of Scope Contracting

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16) Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

On September 30, 2025, Investigator Houston conducted an Addendum Jobsite inspection. Complainant was present; Respondent was not present. In addition to his previous findings as to Complaint Item 1, Investigator Houston noted the following:

Complaint Item 2. A heavy wind and rain storm began shortly after I returned home from work at the Election Center Wednesday Sept 3rd, and by the time the storm quieted down, water began to appear on the floor inside the southern wall below the window of my front room. This area is located directly below the skylight installation and work of sealing the roof around the skylight noted in the Complaint.

Investigator’s Observation: This item is duplicative of the initially submitted and verified item. Upon inspection at the AJSI I did not observe for any new areas of damaged drywall and paint from the active water leak from the respondent’s poorly performed work.

Complainant advised at time of AJSI that no action has been taken by the respondent to remedy the verified item in the issued Written Directive by the Registrar.

On October 1, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) 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.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158

Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

Charge :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

At the December 8, 2025, hearing, Investigator Houston testified regarding the background of the Complaint and the determinations set forth in the Written Directive. Investigator indicated that, at the jobsite inspection, Respondent had acknowledged the efforts that had been taken to repair the complained-of workmanship issues.

Investigator Houston further testified that he had advised Respondent at the jobsite inspection that Respondent would not be able to perform the drywall repairs and would have to come to some terms with Complainant regarding drywall repairs.

The photographs taken at the Jobsite Inspection(s) depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of those jobsite inspections.

At hearing, Complainant testified that, after the issuance of the Written Directive, she had not heard from Respondent. Complainant testified that she agreed with the items set forth in the Written Directive.

Complainant stated that the Respondent had not removed the adjacent roofing material in order to properly flash the skylights and that the “dents” in the skylight hold water instead of shedding the water. Complainant noted that she had obtained estimates regarding replacing damaged roofing because the company that had manufactured the existing metal shingles was no longer in business.

At hearing, Respondent agreed they had tried to make the installation repairs but acknowledged that the skylights had leaked which caused damage to drywall. Respondent opined that the “dent” was simply cosmetic and would not affect the skylights. Mr. Elias noted that he can no longer get up on roofs and that he had depended on his employees to do that work.

Regarding the charge of working out of scope of the license, Respondent argued that was an incorrect charge because the ROC had given them this licensure and Respondent had been doing framing and finishing for years.

At the time of the hearing, both parties indicated they wanted to try to resolve the matter; however, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that they were able to resolve the matter informally.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on January 8, 2026. While this Complainant is noted to be an open case, Respondent’s ROC License record reflects that Respondent’s License was revoked on October 9, 2025.

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.”

The purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The jobsite inspections and the Directive mandated correction of the workmanship issues on the skylights. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period; Respondent did not perform the corrective work to complete the Directive items.

The hearing record did not evidence that, as had been directed, Respondent developed, and provided to the ROC, a written contract form that would comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent was in violation Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

The evidence established that Respondent had included in its June 2024 contract the construction work of “Interior drywall extension (taped, coated and textured).” Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. 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).

The evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing and due to Respondent’s ROC License 333544 already having been revoked,

It is recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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 (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar again note the revocation of 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)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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, January 8, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Arlo Houston

ROC Investigator

[email redacted]

Arizona Skylight Specialists LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Nancy Henry

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff