IV. Evidence Presented

A. CSD

According to CSD investigator Badgett, the Commission issued Baeza a permit to operate on December 31, 1991. In 1993, when all existing carriers were required to be reexamined to retain their license, Baeza took and passed that examination in the top 10% of the group. Badgett states that since March 1993, Baeza's file contains 20 suspension and revocation notices, mainly for Baeza's failure to maintain evidence of adequate liability and cargo insurance on file with the Commission.

Badgett states that this investigation was initiated because of a complaint against Baeza for failing to respond to and accept responsibility for lost items. Although Baeza states he denied the claim, the complainant never filed a written claim.

One of CSD's principal allegations in the OII is that Baeza continues to operate when his permit has been suspended or revoked due to Baeza's failure to maintain evidence of adequate insurance coverage on file with the Commission. CSD witness Waldorf's update of Baeza's records since the filing of the OII indicates that Baeza's permit was suspended on September 24, 2001 for failure to maintain on file evidence of adequate cargo insurance, and administratively revoked for that reason on December 24, 2001. The Commission received on November 20, 2001 a notice of cancellation of liability insurance from Baeza's insurer, effective December 24, 2001. On February 13, 2002, Waldorf stated the Commission received replacement certificates for both public liability and cargo insurance; however, Baeza's permit remained revoked pending receipt of evidence of current workers compensation coverage and payment of past due quarterly fees.

Waldorf also established that Baeza continued to advertise in local newspapers while his license was suspended or revoked due to lack of insurance coverage. Additionally, at the November 28, 2002 PHC, the ALJ directed Baeza to include in his declaration a statement of whether he had continued to operate since September when his permit was suspended. Baeza did not include this information in his declaration.

Badgett states that prior to the issuance of the OII, he requested from Baeza all of his moving documents, by document name, from November 18, 1999 to June 30, 2000. When he visited Baeza's operations to collect the documents, Badgett found that Baeza conducted operations from his home and was very disorganized. According to Badgett, Baeza was hesitant to produce the required documentation, and the documents he finally produced in response to Badgett's request were found in his car, were crumpled, wrinkled, difficult to read and incomplete. Badgett claims that Baeza does not provide written estimates.

According to Badgett, Baeza does not maintain a payroll record and primarily uses day laborers. Also, Baeza does not maintain a claims register, and according to Badgett, states he usually pays the claim to prevent "any hassles."

Badgett's declaration also outlined the following customer complaints:

· Appel-Coonen: The customer complained concerning damage to a piano and missing ring. The customer also alleged that a member of the moving crew appeared intoxicated. The customer also alleged that Baeza failed to provide a written contract and a written estimate for services and other required documents. Baeza processed the claim as required by tariff, and the insurance company denied it. The customer requested reconsideration of her claim, alleging violations of the Commission tariffs, including proper documentation and service issues. CSD states that the statute of limitations for the customer to file a small claims action has expired;

· Betancourt: The customer alleged that Baeza arrived about six hours late and conducted the move in the dark. The customer also alleges that Baeza scratched his new bedroom set and that one box of 36, containing jewelry and other items totaling $1600, was missing. CSD alleges that Baeza never responded to this complaint which CSD forwarded to Baeza;

· Spinella/Ward: These customers alleged a missing jewelry box with a diamond watch inside. The Commission's investigator advised these customers to file a written claim which they did not do. When questioned by Commission investigators, Baeza stated he searched his truck, talked to his workers, and could not find the alleged missing items. CSD alleges Baeza performed this move while his permit was suspended;

· Overton: The customer complained to the Better Business Bureau that Baeza took 16 hours to complete a move that should have taken half the time due to an inadequately sized truck and insufficient personnel. The customer requested a $500 refund, and stated that Baeza was unresponsive to the request. CSD alleges Baeza did not properly document the move;

· Carlyle: The customer filed a personal injury lawsuit against Baeza on September 18, 2000 alleging Baeza's negligent handling of a furniture dolly which came toward her after Baeza set it on the ground, hitting her ankles and causing injury;

· Gilbert: The customer filed a small claims court action against Baeza for damage to an oak dining table. Judgment has been entered in this case for $266, which includes the damage award and costs.

The OII alleges 107 counts for the behavior described above, and CSD believes Baeza has not rebutted any of them. CSD recommends the Commission revoke Baeza's permit with prejudice. Alternatively, or in addition to suspension, CSD believes Baeza should be fined a total of $94,000 as follows: $500 for each of the 107 unrebutted violations alleged in the OII; $500 for failing to comply with the ALJ's directive that Baeza assure the Commission that he was not operating while his permit was suspended; and $5,000 for the eight times Baeza was advertising his services without holding a valid permit.

B. Baeza

Baeza admits to poor business practices in not utilizing the proper paper work and promises to reform if permitted to retain his license. Baeza also admits that his insurance has been cancelled periodically due to nonpayment, but that he will reinstate the insurance, and remain fully insured. Baeza also maintains that despite occasional cancellations for late payment, no claim has been denied against him due to lack of insurance coverage, and notes that his license will be automatically suspended or revoked by the Commission should he now or in the future lose his insurance coverage.²

Baeza submitted letters of recommendation from past customers stating that Baeza (1) "has always demonstrated professionalism, courtesy and care with service" (Kinsler); (2) "arrived on time, ... moved without incurring any damage" and honored the price originally quoted (Sakansky); (3) "believes in making his customers happy and well satisfied by doing a great job"(Hill); and (4) "assisted this customer with moves on three occasions" and "they were perfect, no damaged property and done in a very timely manner." (Cool).

With respect to the individual customer complaints, Baeza responds as follows:

· Appel-Coonen: The customer failed to pay almost $400 of Baeza's bill. Baeza states the piano was slightly scratched on the bottom, which could be easily repaired. Baeza does not believe the customer's claim that she left a ring on the window sill and it subsequently disappeared, and has turned the matter over to his insurance carrier.

· Betancourt: The customer stopped payment on the check for Baeza's services. Baeza states that he arrived at the customer's house a bit late because the first move of the day took longer than expected. Baeza offered to reschedule, but the customer insisted that Baeza do the move on the day promised. Baeza believes that the customer's claims of damage to furniture and missing jewelry are untrue.

· Spinella/Ward: Baeza states that the customer's claim of a missing jewelry box with an expensive watch is untrue. According to Baeza, Ward told him she might be mistaken, the box could be elsewhere, and she would get back to Baeza. She never did.

· Overton: Baeza admits that the move took longer than expected, but does not believe that is grounds to demand a $500 refund, which is almost the amount Baeza billed Overton.

· Carlyle: Baeza's insurance company is handling this personal injury claim. Baeza claims he is not responsible for the customer's injury because he placed a dolly on the floor where the customer directed him to and a few minutes later she tripped over it.

· Gilbert: Baeza denies that the damage to this customer's property is worth $225, but in his brief states that he is ready to pay this claim.

² In his brief filed on January 24, Baeza stated that he currently had cargo insurance and has had liability insurance until recently, because on January 15, Baeza's carrier informed him that his reinstatement check was rejected. Baeza stated he was making efforts through his agent to obtain prompt coverage.