Escambia board reinstates permitting privileges for Freeman Roofing despite unpaid restitution

Escambia County Contractor Competency Board members voted on Oct. 1 to reinstate permitting privileges for Freeman Roofing after the contractor presented evidence of an insurance payment tied to an earlier disciplinary case.

The vote followed public remarks from the homeowners who filed the original complaint, Chloe Sexton and Jennifer Sexton, and a short statement from James B. Freeman, who told the board the insurance company paid the claim and that he would like his permitting privileges returned. “They paid way over what was on there too,” Freeman said during his turn before the board.

Why it matters: The Sextons say the board’s 2024 final order requiring restitution has not been satisfied and that they remain out substantial money after having a replacement roof installed. At the Oct. 1 meeting the Sextons told the board the restitution ordered in April 2024 “has never been paid, not even a dollar,” and asked the board to continue enforcement until the family was made whole.

Board action and immediate follow-up: Board members voted to reinstate Freeman Roofing’s county permitting privileges. During discussion the board requested staff obtain and circulate the insurance adjuster’s documentation showing what the carrier paid and for which items. The board also recorded that fines tied to earlier orders had been paid; restitution to the Sextons remained unresolved and the board asked staff to provide the adjuster’s breakdown to clarify whether insurance payments overlapped with the board-ordered restitution.

What the Sextons said: Chloe Sexton summarized expenses and outcomes for the board and said insurance money did not cover workmanship-related losses. She said the family’s out-of-pocket cost to replace the roof and repair underlying damage exceeded the insurance payment and that Freeman still retained the contract payment the Sextons made to him. “The restitution ordered in 2024 in April has never been paid, not even a dollar,” she said.

What Freeman said: Freeman told the board he had been instructed by the insurer not to act and that the insurer later compensated the claim. He asked that permitting privileges be reinstated and said he would cooperate with staff instructions for any follow-up.

Board reasoning and next steps: Several members acknowledged the case’s complexity — litigation, insurance involvement and prior board orders — and said they did not want to prevent an otherwise established local contractor from conducting permitted work while outstanding civil issues were resolved. The board’s reinstatement was conditioned by direction to staff to obtain the insurer’s adjuster documentation and to return any additional restitution requests or unresolved details to a future board meeting for further action. The board did not order restitution at the meeting; complainants were told how to provide detailed accounting and receipts for the board to consider at a follow-up meeting.

Votes and formal outcomes: The board approved reinstatement of permitting privileges for Freeman Roofing (motion carried). The board directed staff to obtain and distribute the insurance-adjuster files and other claim records to the board and the Sextons; the Sextons were told the board would revisit restitution if necessary once those records were provided.

What remains unresolved: The Sextons say they remain financially short after having the new roof installed; they asked the board to enforce its prior order until restitution is paid. The board did not remove Freeman’s state registration (that is outside the county’s immediate control) but noted it would forward recommendations to the state licensing body when appropriate and continue to monitor the case. The Sextons may present an itemized restitution request to the board at a subsequent meeting.