South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDLLR vs. D. Scott Londeau

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, S.C. Contractors' Licensing Board

Respondents:
D. Scott Londeau
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
99-ALJ-11-0061-IJ

APPEARANCES:
Petitioner & Representative: South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, S.C. Contractors' Licensing Board, M. Kent Lesene, Esquire

Respondent & Representative: D. Scott Londeau, Pro Se

Parties Present: Petitioner Only
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

I. Introduction



The South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, S.C. Contractors' Licensing Board (Board) seeks an injunction and a fine against D. Scott Londeau (Londeau). The Board seeks to enjoin Londeau from acting as a fire protection sprinkler contractor and seeks a fine for Londeau's actions taken after the Board's revocation of Londeau's license in September of 1997. Jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division over this matter is pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-210 (Supp. 1998).



II. Issues



Should Londeau be enjoined from operating as a fire protection sprinkler contractor and should Londeau be fined for violating an order of the Contractor's Licensing Board?







III. Analysis



Injunction and Fine



1. Positions of Parties



The Board asserts Londeau's actions demonstrate he is continuing to act as a fire protection sprinkler contractor even though his license has been revoked by the Board. Thus, the Board asserts Londeau should be enjoined from any further actions as a fire protection sprinkler contractor. In addition, the Board seeks a fine for each violation of its September 4, 1997 order in which it revoked Londeau's fire protection sprinkler contractor license.



Londeau failed to appear at the hearing. Accordingly, no evidence has been presented on Londeau's position in this matter.



2. Findings of Fact



I find by a preponderance of the evidence the following facts:



On September 4, 1997, the Board issued an order revoking Londeau's license as a fire protection sprinkler contractor. That order was not appealed. Thus, as of September 4, 1997, Londeau had no license to act as a fire protection sprinkler contractor.



Despite not having a license, on December 3, 1997, Londeau inspected the fire protection sprinkler system of a clubhouse at the Dolphin Head Clubhouse and received payment for the services rendered. On August 4, 1998, Londeau submitted a bid to the Dolphin Head Clubhouse for the removal and reinstallation of "sprinkler piping" and for the repair of "pipe leaks." The bid was accepted and payment was made for Londeau's work.



On July 1, 1998, Londeau submitted a bid to The Children's Clothing Company in which Londeau sought to provide "the material, supervision, and installation for the automatic wet fire sprinkler system . . . ." for the clothing company's location. The clothing company accepted the bid and Londeau performed the work.



Finally, in March of 1999, Londeau agreed to install fire protection sprinklers for a building being renovated by Clark Custom Builders. The parties agreed upon a price for the work and a time frame for completion. While the work was not completed, Londeau held himself out as being licensed and submitted a bid as a licensed fire protection sprinkler contractor.









3. Conclusions of Law



a. Controlling Law



The controlling statute in this matter is S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-210 (Supp. 1998).



The department, in addition to instituting a criminal proceeding, may institute a civil action through the Administrative Law Judge Division, in the name of the State, for injunctive relief against a person violating this article, a regulation promulgated under this article, or an order of the board. For each violation the administrative law judge may impose a fine of no more than ten thousand dollars.



Thus, an injunction and a fine may be imposed against Londeau if the Board meets its burden of establishing that a violation of the Board's September 4, 1997 order occurred and establishing that a fine in an appropriate amount is warranted.



Here, the Board has met its duty. The Board has proven the contents and the requirements of its September 4, 1997 order, has shown that the order was violated on four separate occasions, and has demonstrated that a $3,000 fine is proper for each violation.



b. Law Applied to Facts



The Board's September 4, 1997 order revoked Londeau's license and thus prevented him from legally operating after that date as a fire protection sprinkler contractor. A fire protection sprinkler contractor is one "engaged in the planning, sale, installation, repair, alteration, addition, maintenance, or inspection of fire protection sprinkler systems or water spray systems." See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-45-30 (Supp. 1998). A fire protection sprinkler system or water spray system are systems "of overhead and underground piping to protect the interior or exterior of a building or structure from fire where the primary extinguishing agent is water and designed in accordance with fire protection engineering standards." S.C. Code Ann. § 23-45-30 (Supp. 1998). Londeau's actions establish four violations of the Board's order since in each of four instances Londeau acted as a fire protection sprinkler contractor by either inspecting, installing, or planning a fire protection sprinkler system or water spray system.



Two violations involved work at the Dolphin Head Clubhouse. On December 3, 1997, Londeau performed a fire protection sprinkler inspection of the clubhouse. On August 4, 1998, Londeau submitted a bid to that same entity for the removal and reinstallation of "sprinkler piping" and for the repair of "pipe leaks." In both cases the work was performed by Londeau and payment was made to him.



A third violation occurred on July 1, 1998. On that date Londeau submitted a bid to The Children's Clothing Company in which Londeau sought to provide the clothing company's location with "the material, supervision, and installation for the automatic wet fire sprinkler system . . . ." The clothing company accepted the bid and Londeau performed the work.



Finally, a fourth violation occurred in March 1999. During that month Londeau submitted a bid to install fire protection sprinklers for a building being renovated by Clark Custom Builders. While Londeau failed to complete the work after accepting the contract, Londeau had clearly held himself out as a fire protection sprinkler contractor and had acted in that capacity in his bidding status.



Having found four violations, the final consideration is imposing a proper fine. Every violation is subject to a fine with the fine being no more that $10,000 for each violation. The fact-finder is empowered to impose the appropriate penalty based on the facts presented. Walker v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 209, 407 S.E.2d 633 (1991). In this case, Londeau's violations are repeated and covered an extensive period of approximately one and a half years. Given the repeated nature of the offenses, a fine of $3,000 for each violation is appropriate for a total fine of $12,000.



IV. Order



D. Scott Londeau is hereby enjoined from acting in any capacity as a fire protection sprinkler contractor until properly licensed by the S.C. Contractors' Licensing Board. Further, for the violations of the Board's September 4, 1997 revocation order, D. Scott Londeau is liable for and shall pay to the Board a fine of $3,000 for each of the four violations for a total fine of $12,000.



AND IT IS SO ORDERED





______________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge



Dated: September 27, 1999

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court