Pfeifer Roofing Inc

Service Provider Response

Thank you [Member Name Removed] for the business and review!

Service Provider Response

At Pfeifer Roofing, Inc., we take great pride in our craftsmanship and complete customer satisfaction is our number one priority. Despite our every attempt to meet this customer's requests, this customer ultimately went to the Oregon Construction Contractors Board where Pfeifer Roofing Inc., was completely exonerated of any wrongdoing. Below is the Findings of the Arbitration Award of the Office of Administrative Hearings. It is important to note this customer took multiple subcontractors, (roofer, mason, painter, others) to the CCB, all while building his own home. FINDINGS The complainant is building his personal, single family residence at [member information removed]. The complainant elected to serve as his own general contractor. The complainant and the respondent entered into a contract whereby the respondent agreed to roof the single family residence being constructed at [member information removed] in return for a payment from the complainant of $7,474. The complainant paid the respondent in full. There is no offset. The roof around the chimney leaked and caused damages to the interior of the residence. Inasmuch as the complainant was unsure of the cause of the leak, he filed complaints containing identical statements of damages against the respondent, as the roofer, and against the brick mason. At hearing, even though the complainant set forth a theory for the cause of the damages, he remained unsure as to which party was responsible for the damages. OAR 812-004-0535 provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in section (3) of this rule, in order for the agency to award damages to the complainant the record of the complaint must contain evidence that persuades the agency, arbitrator or administrative law judge that: (a) The complainant suffered damages; (b) The respondent caused those damages by acts or omissions within the scope of ORS 701.140; and (c) The monetary value of those damages is substantiated on the record. ***** (Emphasis added.) Simply by the "dueling" or "alternative" nature of the complaints, it appears that the complaints should be dismissed. What's more, even though there is no dispute that the complainant has suffered• damages, there is insufficient evidence to determine by a preponderance of the evidence the entity responsible for the damages. The complainant cannot advance alternate theories of responsibility against different respondents, as he did in complaint nos. 119214-103 and 145886-101, and hope to prevail under which ever theory the arbitrator accepts as most plausible. Rather, the complainant is required by law to prove responsibility for damages. The complainant failed to do so in this instance. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. Next, regardless of which sub-contractor's work was the physical cause of the leaks, the record of the hearing preponderates in favor of finding that the complainant was ultimately the party responsible for the leaks originating from around the chimney and the Gray and Pfeifer: CCB File No. 119214-103 Page 2 of 3 resultant damages. The complainant chose to serve as his own general contractor for the building of his residence. While to do so is allowed under Oregon law and potentially provides for cost savings, it does not come without some possible risks-one of which being the inability to properly coordinate the work and work products of interacting subcontractors. The construction of the chimney per the complainant's plans, although within industry standards, was atypical for this area of the country. Therefore, it required clear coordination between the roofer and the brick mason to insure that the construction was successful. The complainant did not facilitate the necessary coordination; as a result, the integration of the roofing materials with the chimney failed. Ultimately it was the responsibility of the general contractor, Mr. [member name removed], not the roofer or the brick mason, to insure that the work, materials, and schedules were coordinated. Therefore, respondent is not liable to the complainant for damages relating to the roof. Finally, the complainant seeks damages to replace soffit materials where nails were driven through and protruded beyond the soffits. The CCB's investigator recommended that the nails be clipped and the soffits puttied. The respondent complied with the CCB's recommendations, which recommendations meet minimum industry standards. Therefore, no damages are warranted for this item. The respondent is not responsible to pay the $50 processing fee paid by the complainant for the processing of the CCB complaint. ORS 701.147(7),(8) and OAR 812-004-0250(2)(c). AWARD Complaint no. 119214-103 is dismissed.