Kyle Harris And Cornerstone Reconstruction Services, LLC d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration and Remodeling of Greater Baton Rouge VS State Licencing Board for Contractors
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1437 KYLE HARRIS AND CORNERSTONE RECONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC A B D PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION AND REMODELING OF GREATER BATON ROUGE y VERSUS THE LOUISIANA STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD udgment Rendered APR 2 6 2013 t On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No C606587 Honorable Wilson E Fields Judge Presiding David M Cohn Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Baton Kyle Harris and Cornerstone Rouge Louisiana Reconstruction Services LLC a b d Paul Davis Restoration and Remodeling of Greater Baton Rouge Stephanie B Laborde Heather L Landry Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE WHIPPLE C McCLENDON J Counsel for Defendant Appellee The Louisiana State Contractors Licensing Board AND HIGGINBOTHAM J7 McCLENDON J Kyle Harris seeks review of a district court judgment that affirmed an administrative decision of the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors The Board found that Mr Harris violated LSA 37 by agreeing to S2 R 2175 A perform contracting services without being registered as required by the statute For the following reasons we reverse FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mr Harris is employed as an estimator for Cornerstone Reconstruction Services LLC d Paul Davis Restoration and Remodeling of Greater Baton a b Rouge Cornerstone Cornerstone received a request from Safeco Insurance Company to provide an estimate for repair work for a home in Baton Rouge Mr Harris submitted an estimate to Safeco on behalf of Paul Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge Mr Harris was identified as Claim Rep and Estimator on the estimate provided to Safeco Nowhere on the estimate was Mr Harris identified as a contractor Louis Rossignol who needed to have the work performed on a home obtained a copy of the estimate provided to Safeco After receiving the estimate Mr Rossignol made an inquiry to the State Licensing Board for Contractors to ascertain whether Kyle Harris of Paul Davis Restoration and Remodeling of Baton Rouge is a licensed contractor As a result of Mr Rossignol inquiry s the Board charged Kyle Harris a b d Paul Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge with violating LSA 37 discussed within for S 2 R 2175 A bidding or performing home improvement contracting services without possessing a Louisiana State Home Improvement Registration Mr Harris and Billy Spiers the sole member of Cornerstone attended the scheduled administrative hearing to address the charge At the hearing Mr Spiers testified that at all pertinent times Mr Harris was acting on behalf of Cornerstone and was providing an estimate on behalf of Cornerstone Mr Spiers 2 acknowledged that the estimate was done utilizing the business trade name s rather than its registered name of Cornerstone Reconstruction Services LLC Prior to reaching its decision the Board noted that Cornerstone not Mr Harris had previously appeared before the Board and had been assessed fines for using its trade name as opposed to its registered name on certain documents Although a Board member made a motion which was seconded by another Board member to put Cornerstone on probation the motion was withdrawn after the members learned that Cornerstone was not a party to the administrative proceeding Following the hearing the Board found Mr Harris guilty of violating LSA 37 and assessed him with the maximum S 2 R 2175 A fine in the amount of 3 08 871 Mr Harris and Cornerstone pursuant to LSA 49 of the Louisiana S R 964 Administrative Procedure Act filed a petition for judicial review with the 19th Judicial District Court Following a hearing the district court affirmed the Board s decision concluding that the Board was within its discretion in finding that Kyle Harris d Paul Davis Restoration and Remodeling was contracting to perform a b work Mr Harris and Cornerstone have appealed to this court asserting that the district court erred in affirming the Board decision s STANDARD OF REVIEW The Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act provides for judicial review of administrative adjudications Louisiana Revised Statutes 49 Gprovides that 964 the district court may reverse or modify the decision of the administrative agency We note that the name on the claim valuation was Paul Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge as opposed to Cornerstone full franchise name of Paul Davis Restoration and s Remodeling of Greater Baton Rouge z The penalty for violating LSA 37 is contained in LSA 37 which S2 R 2175 A S4 R 2175 provides in pertinent part B The subcommittee may assess an administrative penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars or twenty percent of the total contract price whichever is five greater payable within thirty days of their order for each violation of any of the provisions of this Part committed by the home improvement contractor who is registered or who is required to be registered plus any administrative costs incurred by the subcommittee 3 on judicial review only if substantiai rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences or conclusions are 1 In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions 2 In excess of the statutory authority of the agency I 3 Made upon unlawful procedure 4 Affected by other error of law 5 Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion or 6 Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court In the application of this rule the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review In the application of the rule where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first observation of hand demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not due regard shall be given to the agency determination of s credibility issues Pursuant to paragraph G the district court is a fact finder that weighs the 6 evidence and makes its own conclusions of fact by a preponderance of the evidence Universal Placement Int v Louisiana Workforce Comm 11 1 n 1353 La 1 Cir 7 97 So 1154 1158 writ denied 12 La App 12 26 3d 1974 12 9 li 100 So 845 3d DISCUSSION The Board conciuded that Mr Harris violated Louisiana Revised Statutes A 2 2175 37 The statute provides that n person shall undertake offer to o undertake or agree to perform home improvement contracting services unless registered with and approved by the Residential Building Contractors Subcommittee of the State Licensing Board for Contractors as a home improvement contractor Mr Harris asserts however that he as an employee of Cornerstone is excepted from prosecution for a violation of LSA 37 by LSA S2 R R 2175 S A 5 2175 37 Specifically LSA 37 exempts from the S 5 R Z175 A provisions of LSA 37 a person who performs labor or S 2 R 2175 ny A services for a home improvement contractor for wages or salary and who does 4 not act in the capacity as a home improvement contractor Mr Harris asserts that all evidence makes it clear that he submitted the claim valuation within the course and scope of his employment not as a contractor Conversely the Board contends that Mr Harris employment status with s Cornerstone is irrelevant The Board notes that the only business name listed on the estimate prepared by Mr Harris is Paul Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge which is not a registered home improvement contractor The Board avers that there is nothing on the estimate which forms the basis of the alleged violation to indicate that Mr Harris may have been acting on behalf of Cornerstone As such the Board concludes that Mr Harris employment s relationship with another entiry not a party to these proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the application of the contractor licensing law to this violation We disagree Nothing in the record suggests that Mr Harris submitted the estimate on his own behalf under the tradename Paul Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge Rather the documents prepared by Mr Harris clearly indicate that Mr Harris is a Rep and Estimator for Paul Davis Claim Restoration a b d Paul Remodeling of Baton Rouge The only references to Kyle Harris Davis Restoration Remodeling of Baton Rouge are documents prepared by and introduced into evidence by the Board itself Accordingly Mr Harris is exempt from prosecution under LSA 37 S5 R 2175 A Further in essence the Board concluded that Cornerstone employee s Mr Harris should be held liable for Cornerstone use of its tradename on s documents submitted to Safeco In an initial response to the charges levied by the Board Gayle Spiers a representative of Cornerstone responded to the s Board charges in an e as follows mail We are Cornerstone Reconstruction Services LLC dba Paul Davis Restoration Harris Remodeling of Greater Baton Rouge Employee Kyle wrote an estimate to repair the properly the insurance company Safeco agreement to perform repairs 5 per request of We have not entered into an Despite this uncontradicked response the Board never filed charges against Cornerstone for utilizing its tradename on the documents sent to Safeco without identifying itself as the contractor The Board has cited no authority to support its position that an employee will be liable for his employer failure to disclose ownership nor can we find s any A reading of the transcript of the administrative hearing reveals that the Board penalized Mr Harris because of his employer salleged omissions Clearly Mr Harris substantial rights have been violated by the Board decision which s s therefore must be reversed See LSA 49 SG R 964 CONCWSION In light of the foregoing the district court judgment affirming the s s Board decision is reversed We hereby vacate the penalty imposed by the Board Costs of this appeal in the amount of 678 are assessed against the 50 Board REVERSED 3 We note that Mr Harris also seeks attorney fees and costs However the statute allowing s recovery of costs and fees applies only when the Board files the petition for judicial review See S1 R 964 LSA 49 and 7arrott v Louisiana State Bd of Medical Examiners 04 1714 App 4 Harris is 5 19 So 526 556 attorney and rather LaMr Cir 8entitled to recover his Because Mr Harris costs than the Board sought 09 2 not 3d review sfees 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
