ALJDEC

98F-181-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-06-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |MARY STEELE, |§|CASE NO.: 98/181 | | |§| | |Plaintiff, |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-181-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 061247, Class C-05 of|§|DECISION AND ORDER | |THERMAL TOP CORPORATION, |§| | | |§| | |Defendant, |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. The Defendant failed to appear. The Registrar of Contractors appeared through Assistant Attorney General, Eva Bacal. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on June 3, 1998, pursuant to notice duly sent to all parties. The Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf. The Defendant failed to appear. The Registrar of Contractors appeared through Assistant Attorney General, Eva Bacal. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. There was no dispute that the Plaintiff is an owner of residential property.

2. There was no dispute that a portion of the Plaintiff’s original roof had been installed, by the Defendant, during the month of February, 1985.

3. Credible evidence established that the original roof failed some time between the end of February, 1985, and May, 1995, and that the Plaintiff suffered some interior damage as a result of the original roof failure.

4. Credible evidence established that the Defendant replaced the original roof during May, 1995, in evident accordance with the parties’ private warranty agreement.

5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the replacement roof is solely over the original manufactured home which now serves as the central portion of the Plaintiff’s residence and that there are additional roofs over the porch areas and the built-on family room.

6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the roofs over the porch areas and the family room were not constructed by the Defendant.

7. The Contractors’ Recovery Fund has a two year period within which all claims must be filed as set forth in A.R.S. §32-1136(A).

8. Pursuant to the terms of the applicable statute of limitations, it is found that the only construction work, and any possible resulting damages, that could qualify for payment from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund would have to be related to the roof replacement work which took place during the month of May, 1995.

9. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the construction work performed in the replacement of the roof is within applicable industry standards.

10. There was insufficient credible evidence presented to establish that the construction work performed by the Defendant in the replacement of the portion of Plaintiff’s roof over the manufactured residence had failed or allowed moisture to penetrate into the interior of the Plaintiff’s residence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record is insufficient to support an award from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages be denied and that Case No. 98/181 be closed.

Dated this 8th day of June, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of June, 1998 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

-----------------------