ALJDEC

98F-242-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-03-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS | |(| | |MICHAEL TIEMANN, |(|Case No.: 98/242 | | |(| | |Plaintiff, |(|Docket No.: 98F-242-ROC | | |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(| | |License No. 112729, Class C-42 of|(|Recommended | |HAYS CHARLOTTE CATALINA ROOFING, |(|Decision and Order | |INC. (CORP.), |(| | | |(| | |Defendant. |(| | | |(| | | |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: Tuesday, March 17th, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. Appearances: The Plaintiff, Michael Tiemann, appeared in his own behalf. The Defendant was represented by Michael J. Vingelli, Attorney-at-Law. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston

This matter came on for administrative hearing on March 17th, 1998. The Plaintiff appeared in his own behalf. The Defendant was represented by Michael J. Vingelli, Attorney-at-Law. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based on the record taken as a whole, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. The Defendant in this case, Hays Charlotte Catalina Roofing, Inc., had its Class C-42 License Number 112729 revoked as a result of the underlying disciplinary hearing in this matter, Case Number T97-0825, Docket Number 97F-T0825-ROC. The revocation was for violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A. Such revocation is determined to render this Defendant unable to remedy the violations of the State’s contracting laws which gave rise to the instant claim. The final agency decision in that case was entered by the Registrar of Contractors on August 27th, 1997.

2. Defendant failed to comply with the final order of the Registrar before the effective date of that Order, which was October 1st, 1997. The Order was for the Defendant to “replace[ ] the roofing system on the Complainant’s residence and cause[ ] the proper repair of all interior damage caused by moisture leakage through the failed roofing system.” Defendant, to date, has still not obeyed any of the terms of the order of the Registrar.

3. Plaintiff filed the instant action for a payout from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund on November 19th, 1997. Registrar of Contractors’ Inspector/Investigator Mr. Richard C. Allen, was assigned to the case.

4. The Plaintiff obtained three written estimates from three appropriately licensed roofing businesses, each offering their proposal for the cost of performing the work of replacing the roofing system on Plaintiff’s house. One estimate obtained by the Plaintiff was that of Myers Roofing Company of Globe, Arizona, and was in the amount of $30,100.00. A second proposal was that of Sun-Lite Constructors, Inc., of Casa Grande, Arizona, and was in the amount of $28,250.00. The third estimate obtained by the Plaintiff was from K & M Roofing Systems, also of Casa Grande, Arizona, and was for the lowest amount, $25,400.00.

5. Mr. Kyle Myers of K & M Roofing Systems testified at the hearing as to what would be necessary to properly replace the roofing system of Plaintiff’s house. Mr. Myers is quite familiar with the condition of the Plaintiff’s roof, both as to its present state, and how it was earlier. Mr. Allen, who was the Inspector assigned to the underlying disciplinary case in this matter, and who also has inspected the roof, also gave his opinion on this subject. Both of these witnesses indicated that the extent of the problem of the Plaintiff’s roof, and now the cost of correcting it, has been exacerbated by the Defendant’s botched job, and cannot now properly be remedied simply by removing what the Defendant had originally installed and then replacing it. Mr. Allen, in his professional capacity, took into consideration the three estimates mentioned above, and recommended that a payout to the Plaintiff from the recovery fund in the amount of $20,000.00 be approved.

6. Mr. Jerry Taylor testified for the Defendant. Mr. Taylor is an experienced roofer, and is General Manager of Catalina Roofing in Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Taylor testified that his company could do the necessary work on the Plaintiff’s roof for thousands of dollars less than the estimates. However, Mr. Taylor conceded that his opinion was given without ever having seen, let alone inspected, the roof.

7. Based on credible and preponderant evidence adduced at the hearing of this matter, it is found that a proper and reasonable amount payable to Plaintiff from the Contractors’ Recovery Fund is $20,000.00, representing the maximum amount of a single award that can be ordered from the fund. (See: Conclusion of Law, #4, infra.)

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1154.E., A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092.

2. Plaintiff is a “Person injured” within the meaning of A.R.S. §32-1131.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Registrar of Contractors is empowered to determine and award proper payment to the Plaintiff from the contractors’ recovery fund. A.R.S. §32-1154.E.

4. The within record supports an award to the Plaintiff in the sum of $20,000.00, the maximum dollar amount recoverable for a single claim under the act. A.R.S. §32-1132.A., all of which is chargeable against the Defendant and/or persons on the License as set forth at A.R.S. §32- 1139.B.

Recommended Order

In view of the foregoing , it is hereby recommended that on the effective date of this order the Registrar of Contractors commence and finalize payment procedures from the contractors’ recovery fund to Plaintiff in the amount of $20,000.00, for damages. Dated this 17th day of March, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of March, 1998, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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