How many complaints and lawsuits involving Terminix, aka Terminex, have been filed in Connecticut? How does the State of Connecticut rate as a public agency providing information to the public and/or in their own access to knowledge necessary to regulate the businesses they authorize to spray toxic chemicals in homes, businesses, and schools?

In an e-mail letter December 6, 1999, to the Webmaster of the State of Connecticut’s site, I requested the total number of complaints filed against Terminix with Connecticut’s licensing/regulatory agency and during what time period. In response to my inquiry, a letter dated December 7, 1998, from Debra Catuccio, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Pesticide Management Division, stated:

According to files maintained in this office, Terminix International operated five business locations in the State of Connecticut in the calendar year 1998.  During that same time period, the Pesticide Management Division received a total of 12 complaints against Terminix.

On February 21, 1999, I sent a letter to Ms. Catuccio requesting the name and address of Connecticut’s licensing and regulating agency; how many years Connecticut’s licensing and regulating agency maintains records of complaints; and how many complaints were filed, 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.)?

A letter dated March 1 stated, “In response to your request, the Department will search its files to locate the requested documents. The review will be conducted as promptly as possible and when the search is complete, you will be notified.”

To date, no further information has been received from the Department. Perhaps they were too busy to respond because they were busy taking action revoking Terminix’s licenses.

Kudos to the State of Connecticut for putting their civil suits on line! My first search for “Terminix” and “Terminex” at the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Civil/Family Case Look-up resulted in a list of 18 lawsuits involving Terminix or Terminex. Of those 18, Terminix was listed as a plaintiff in eight cases and as a defendant in ten, one of which is the case of the State of Connecticut vs. Terminix. A subsequent search showed Terminix, aka Terminex, as defendant in nine cases, and as the plaintiff in nine.  It appears to me the majority (if not all) of the cases in which Terminix is the plaintiff are of Terminix suing previous employees who dare venture out and start their own businesses doing what they know how to do.  Maybe, instead of trying to start a business doing what they know how to do, these techs should have sought employment as doctors, computer engineers, school teachers, or... well, there are probably a lot of minimum wage jobs out there they can do to support their families.

Mehler and Russell vs. Terminix.  Terminix drilled holes in a basement slab, causing a break in the heating fuel line underneath the slab. The break in the line caused a discharge of heating fuel to the soil and groundwater below the property.

Terminix’s motion to force the plaintiffs into binding arbitration was denied by the District Court in Connecticut.  Terminix appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City.  In a 2-1 split decision in February 2000, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in Terminix’s favor and remanded the case to be decided in arbitration.  This case prompted an investigation by the State of Connecticut, which resulted in revocation of the operating licenses of three of the four Terminix branches. The state is seeking a permanent injunction requiring Terminix to hire qualified consultants to investigate the degree and extent of contamination at the Deep River home and to submit and then complete a plan for remediation of the site. The state is also seeking fines ranging from up to $2,500 to $5,000 per day per violation, and up to $25,000 per day for the violations involved in the Deep River incident.

Having found numerous violations during an investigation prompted by the Mehler and Russell case, the State of Connecticut moved to revoke the licenses of three of Terminix’s four Connecticut offices. According to the 11/10/99 press release, State Sues Terminix for Numerous Violations of Environmental Laws, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s Attorney General, stated, “Terminix degraded the environment, defied the law, and endangered Connecticut citizens,” and “Terminix must make amends, not just apologies, for its egregious, repeated lawlessness.”

“This is a company that has chosen to put its business interests ahead of its customers’ interests and the environment.” -- Richard Barlow, DEP (3/17/99 Hartford Courant)

“Terminix denies any wrongdoing.”  -- Hartford Courant, 11/11/99

“On hundreds of occasions since 1995, Blumenthal said, Terminix knowingly falsified records on pesticide use and supervision, and refused to allow the state access to records.” -- Hartford Courant, 11/11/99

According to the 10/27/00 article, “Witness: Terminix Records Altered” by Daniel P. Jones, in The Hartford Courant, a former supervisor for Terminix, Anthony Coviello, testified at a DEP hearing that he was instructed by a regional officer of the company to alter records of pesticide treatments at customers’ homes. He said he altered the records but resigned from Terminix, partly because of his feeling he had been pressured to do something wrong.

Attorney General and DEP Commissioner Announce $1 Million Settlement With Terminix, June 25, 2002. Terminix settled with Connecticut concerning claims Terminix had failed to properly supervise its pesticide applicators resulting in dangerous or ineffective applications of pesticides, interfered with State inspections, falsified records, and pressured employees to lie to state investigators.  Terminix agreed to pay a $1 million penalty, temporarily close its North Haven office, and implement reforms of its business practices.