Are you aware that by signing a contract with Terminix, YOU may be voluntarily signing away your rights as granted by the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution?

There is no way to know how many cases have gone to arbitration as there is no public record of arbitration proceedings.  As to arbitration giving everyone a “fair third party to decide,” that’s highly debatable and is the crux of ongoing lawsuits trying to overturn the binding arbitration provision; and it’s not Terminix trying to overturn it!  After all, Terminix took the issue of  arbitration all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; and as one newspaper reported, “Company officials said that their contracts with customers prohibit lawsuits over service.”

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court in Allied Bruce Terminix v. Dobson made it more difficult for courts to deem arbitration clauses unenforceable.  In the suit, a state court had found that an arbitration agreement between a homeowner and pest control company was invalid because the contract did not involve interstate commerce.  The FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] applies only to contracts involving interstate commerce.)  But the Supreme Court ruled that the pest control contract did indeed involve interstate commerce and that any disputes therefore had to go to arbitration.

-- Public Citizen News, May/June 2000, pg. 9         

Also, according to Public Citizen News, May/June 2000, pgs. 8-9:

Mandatory arbitration clauses are trouble for consumers because they are:

• Costly.  It can cost consumers hundreds of dollars to file for arbitration and thousands to pay for a hearing -- fees that often must be paid up-front.
• Almost always decided in favor of companies.  A Washington Post story recently reported that First USA, the nation’s largest second-largest issuer of credit cards, has won 99.6 percent of arbitrated consumer disputes.
• Fundamentally unfair.  Consumers don’t have equal bargaining power with large companies, don’t have experience with arbitration, and don’t have the power to negotiate the arbitration clauses out of the contracts.  Also, while consumers unwittingly sign away their right to sue in court, corporations retain their right to take consumers to court.
• Conducted in secret, without a public record (as in a jury trial), so that repetitive offenses by a company go unreported.
• Especially harmful to consumers with small losses, as they prohibit class action lawsuits, thereby prohibiting people from aggregating their small claims into one lawsuit to make it economically viable.

In addition, many mandatory arbitrations:

• Must be conducted in a place convenient to the corporation, not the consumer.
• Allow the corporation to pick the arbitration service, thus giving arbitration companies incentives to issue pro-corporate rulings.

“It’s like playing in a professional sports leage, and you’re playing against a team that has the biggest salaries, chooses the referees, sets the rules, and plays all home games,” Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said.  “Consumers can’t win in that league.”

The mandatory arbitration clauses often are in fine print or buried in standard, take-it-or-leave-it contracts, so when consumers buy or use a produce or service, or employees sign standard paperwork at orientation, they sign away their right to sue a company, often without realizing it.  As a result, consumer or employee access to public courts is blocked.

In reaction to growing conern over the issue, Public Citizen is launching a campaign to persuade Congress to end the use of mandatory arbitration clauses.  “Companies that use these clauses are knowingly tricking their consumers into giving up their rights,” Claybrook said.  “Many people have never even heard of arbitration.  Consumers are being denied their day in court.  It has to stop.”

Help Public Citizen Fight Unfair Arbitration!

• Have you ever been forced to arbitrate a dispute, even though you never actually waived your right to go to court?
• Have you received an unfair result in a dispute you wanted to take to court, but couldn’t because of mandatory arbitration?
• Have you been required to pay huge arbitration fees?
• Have you been forced to arbitrate a dispute out of state?
• Have you beenn unable to find an attorney to represent you because an arbitration clause would bar you from recovering anything?

If so, please contact Elizabeth Strawn at (202) 454-5135 with your real life stories about unfair arbitration to help persuade members of Congress to change existing law.  Real-life stories about what happens to people who are forced into arbitration help persuade members of Congress, because they show the miscarriages of justice that result.  Because arbitrators do not report the results of their cases, it is difficult to find examples.  That is where you come in:  You can help Public Citizen’s Arbitration Project by telling us your stories of unfair arbitration.

For more on Public Citizen’s work against mandatory arbitration clauses, visit their web site at http://www.citizen.org/press/pr-arb1.htm.

While Public Citizen battles for our rights in Congress, the following e-mail letter may interest anyone willing to help others attempting to overturn the mandatory arbitration clause in court:

I am an attorney in Houston, Texas, and I presently have two complaints filed with Terminix.  One suit was filed and aborted once it became clear Terminix will appeal everything forever.  I am building a lawsuit against Terminix for the deception, fraud, and gross negligence in treating the house.  However, in the course of working on these cases, it becomes abundantly clear that the arbitration clause may be vulnerable, particularly to a class action.  I would like to collect as many contracts as possible to determine the extent of what is already clear -- that Terminix has used many different forms in Texas for the same service which affects consumer rights dramatically.  [Not just looking for contracts from Texas.]

In addition Terminix is vulnerable to a class action arising from the “new damage” fraud.  They define new damage as wood that is infested with live activity that they see.  Since they never probe (absolutely the most fundamental means of determining if live activity is in an area) and they never come to the consumer’s house during wall covering removal, they systematically avoid the opportunities for seeing live activity and therefore avoid responsibility.  I would like anyone who has been told by Terminix that their damage was not new damage or anyone who is willing to share their contracts or discuss the possibility of participation in a class action, to please contact me at DugInsLaw@aol.com or call my office at 1-888-869-9690.  My name is Evin Dugas, and I am with the law firm of Dugas & Inselmann, P.C.