How many complaints against Terminix have been filed in Alabama? How does the State of Alabama rate as a public agency in providing information to the public and/or in their own knowledge of pest control businesses that spray toxic chemicals in homes?

The following information was requested via an e-mail letter sent December 6, 1999, to the State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture:

• The number of Terminix branches operating in the State of Alabama.
• The number of complaints filed against Terminix with Alabama’s licensing/regulatory agency and during what time period.

After receiving no response to the above, a letter was sent February 21, 1999, to the State of Alabama, Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection Division, asking the following questions. The answers were provided in a letter dated March 5, 1999, from John A. Bloch, Director, Plant Protection and Pesticide Management Division:

1. Name and address of Alabama’s pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulating agency:

Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries
Plant Protection and Pesticide Management Division
P.O. Box 3336
Montgomery, AL 36109-0336
(304) 240-7239 Phone

2. Number of years Alabama’s licensing and regulating agency maintains records of complaints against pest control/pest inspection companies:

Complaints on companies are maintained six (6) years.

3. Number of Terminix branches currently operating in Alabama?  (My records, taken from the Yellow Pages on the Internet, indicate there are currently 25 Terminix, aka Terminix Co., aka Terminix International, aka Terminix Service, aka Terminix Service, Inc., aka Terminix Termite & Pest branches operating in Alabama.)

Enclosed is a list of licensed structural pest control firms.

(What? They can’t count or don’t know?  Okay, I counted 22 in the booklet they sent.)

4. Number of complaints, if any, filed in Alabama against Terminix International (and its aka’s); including the nature of the complaints, name and location of Terminix branch involved; and disposition of complaints (dismissed, settled, fine, suspended or revoked license, probation, etc.):

As to the number of complaints filed against Terminix International (and its aka’s), as well as provide a summary of each complaint, would require a review of each file.  We do not have the resources to provide such information. However, you and/or your agent are free to come to this office and review these files.

On WHAT basis does Alabama’s regulating agency issue license renewals? It certainly doesn’t appear that they take into consideration the number or the nature of any complaints. How do they know, or do they even care, if there are repeated complaints of the same nature against the same branch applying for a license renewal?

• Leonard v. Terminix:  Terminix is accused of failing to make inspections as required by Alabama statutes in a three-year old class action lawsuit. The regulatory agency in Alabama, after an audit, concluded Terminix was systematically not doing the inspections days before the class action was filed.  Terminix agreed to a $1,200 fine in Alabama only days after an agreement in Florida with its Attorney General in which Terminix agreed to pay millions.

Plaintiffs’ attorney filing case:

Tom Campbell
Campbell Law
A Professional Corporation
Complex and Class Litigation
100 Concourse Parkway, Suite 115
Birmingham, Alabama 35244
Office: (205) 278-6650

Supreme Court of Alabama, Oct. Term, 1998-99, 1971546, Ex parte Terminix Int’l. Company, L.P. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Walter Leonard and Evalina Leonard v. Terminix International Company, L.P., et al.)  Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-97-2755. Houston, Justice, This factually complex case presents issues concerning the imputation of knowledge between law firms acting in a co-counsel relationship.  At various times in 1997, two Alabama attorneys -- Tom Campbell and Scott Simpson -- filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court three different class actions against various termite companies, one of which was Terminix International Company, L.P. ("Terminix"). The complaints were substantially the same, each alleging that the termite companies had failed to perform annual inspections as required under Ala. Code 1975, 2-28-9.....  Writ denied.

Major Victory in Alabama Terminix Class Action.  Posting on November 4, 2002 to this site’s guestbook by the Leonard’s attorney, Tom Campbell:

We got a great decision two weeks ago from the Alabama Supreme Court.
They invalidated the arbitration clause for all Alabama customers, and the
Court is allowing the case to go forward.  A link to the opinion is at http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2002/1010555.htm.

I am back in the case representing the Leonards and the class. We will seek a refund of all annual fees because Terminix failed to conduct annual inspections as required by law in Alabama statutes.  The failure to do them is a crime in Alabama.
 

• Devers v. Greystone & Terminix International (story and photo).  Lucille Devers, a 79-year-old resident of Greystone Retirement Community in Huntsville, Ala., was found with ants covering her bed and walls and exiting her mouth, nose, ears, and genital and execretory organs.  Investigation showed Terminix usually spent less than 10 minutes a month at the facility, but properly performed pest control would take at least 45 minutes.

Devers' attorney, S.A. "Bud" Watson Jr., said he sought to keep the case out of arbitration and bring it to trial. "I viewed this case as being significant to all people in extended care," Watson said. "If the trial had been in a vacuum of arbitration, experience teaches that it would have had no benefit to the community at large."  An Alabama jury awarded $5.35 million, including $3.5 million in punitive damages, with Greystone and Terminix each paying $1.75 million.

The following excerpts are taken from the article, “Overcoming Pesticide Company’s Discovery Abuse, Counsel Obtains Verdict for Victim of Fire Ant Attack,” from the Online Law Reporter, Oct 2002:

Watson notes that the first major hurdle was bringing the case against Terminix to trial.  A clause in the firm’s service contract with the facility required that disputes be arbitrated.... The court denied Terminix’s attempts to enforce the arbitration provision.

One of the greatest challenges in the case, McGrath maintains, was contending with Terminix’s substantial discovery abuse. The company initially refused to respond to any discovery requests, then obstructed plaintiff’s efforts to obtain the most basic documentation and learn the identities of fact witnesses. After a year, Terminix began producing minimal documentation and discovery responses but blocked plaintiff’s attempts to depose any defense witnesses until three weeks before trial, he says.