Kentucky

How many complaints and lawsuits involving Terminix, aka Terminex, have been filed in Kentucky?  How does the State of Kentucky rate as a public agency in providing information to the public and/or in their own knowledge of the pest control companies that spray toxic chemicals in homes, businesses, and schools?
State of Kentucky Responsiveness

The following questions, asked in a letter dated February 22, 1999, to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of the Attorney General, were answered March 5, by Todd E. Leatherman, Director of the Consumer Protection Division, Office of the Attorney General:

  1. What is the name and address of Kentucky’s pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulating agency?

    2. Department of Agriculture
    Division of Pesticides
    100 Fair Oaks, 5th Floor
    Frankfort, KY  40601

  2. How many years does Kentucky’s licensing and regulating agency maintain records of complaints against pest control/pest inspection companies?

    3. Consumer complaints are kept in this office for five years then purged.  Litigation, after dismissal, is kept in this office for one year and off site for seven years.

  3. How many Terminix branches are currently operating in Kentucky?  (My records, taken from the Yellow Pages on the Internet, indicate there are 26 Terminix, aka Terminix International branches operating in Kentucky.)

    4. Department of Agriculture states there are 11 Terminix branches operating in Kentucky.

  4. How many complaints, if any, have been filed in Kentucky 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.)?

    5. The number of complaints filed against Terminix is 107 complaints for companies at 12 different locations in Kentucky. The complaints are available for review or copies of the individual complaints may be obtained by request and pre-payment for the copies.  Additional complaints may have been filed with the Kentucky Department of Agriculture.

    In addition there are complaints which are related to litigation between Terminix and this office. At this time, we are unable to provide you with copies of that information for the following reasons:

    1. Pursuant to KRS 61.878(h), agency records from an ongoing investigation are exempted from the open records law.  In addition, prior to closing the file, the agency is required to review the file and segregate information which is exempt for other reasons. Examples of such material includes, but is not limited to, material protected by the attorney-client privilege, is exempt because it reflects the preliminary recommendations of staff, not reflecting the final agency decision, etc. KRS 61.878(I),(j).

    2. In addition the volume of records contained in this file is substantial. We anticipate that after the file is closed the documents responsive to your request would require an extremely burdensome amount of effort to provide you with all the information that is responsive to your request.  We would suggest that you refine your request, or consider reviewing the records in person to determine the exact information which you want to review.  We have over five (5) full file drawer file cabinets containing files which would potentially contain information responsive to your request.
State of Kentucky Action(s)

May 19, 1994 - Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel., Chris Gorman, Attorney General v. Terminix International Corporation, A Delaware Corporation and TSSGP Limited Partnership, In a Limited Partnership, d/b/a/ Terminix International Company L.P., Case 94-CI 00745, Consent Judgment entered and filed in the Franklin Circuit Court, states in part:

    Now therefore, without any admission of liability or fact by the defendants, and with the consent of the parties, it is ordered and adjudged:

    1. Pursuant to KRS 367.190, the Defendants and any successors in interest, their agents, employees, and others acting on their behalf, are permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in any unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices which constitute violations of the Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.170, which shall include, but not be limited to:

      A. Failing to treat buildings for termite infestation according to state minimum treatment standards by not drilling treatment holes and not applying adequate quantities of termiticide in appropriate locations within the structure, and at proper spacing intervals;

      B. Failing to apply any termiticide, or failing to apply adequate quantities of termiticide throughout the structure as required by law;

      C. Failing to penetrate completely through material barriers such as walls or floors by drilling, and then filling in the incomplete hole with cement or sealing material to give the appearance of treatment;

      D. Creating the appearance of a filled in drill hole by making a circular smear of cement or sealer on the surface when no hole was drilled;

      E. Diluting the termiticide mixture actually applied to the consumer’s property to a level of concentration below that which is required by applicable law, resulting in an inadequate or ineffective treatment.

      F. On pre-treatment of building sites for termites merely posting a notice that the job has been performed, or taking other such action indicating that a pre-treatment has been performed, when in fact the site was not pre-treated, or not adequately pre-treated;

      G. Charging consumers for procedures listed on the contract, including, but not limited to “trenching,” when in fact the procedure has not been done, or, if conditions make the listed procedure impossible or inadvisable, an effective alternative procedure was also not done;

      H. Failing to inform consumers with reinspection and retreatment contracts that termites had been found on reinspection;

      I. Refusing to pay consumers termite damage claims under the Defendants’ contractual guarantee by denying that damage was caused by termites, when in fact the Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that it was caused by termites and covered by Defendant’s contract....

    5. The Defendants shall (i) pay the sum of $750,000 into an escrow or trust fund; or (ii) post a letter of credit for $750,000; or (iii) provide some other form of funding acceptable to the Attorney General which shall be referred to as the ‘Fund’. The Fund shall be administered by the Attorney General for the payment of claims and expenses in the manner set forth in this paragraph.

    7. If it is discovered that Terminix has violated the Permanent Injunction in paragraph 1 above, in addition to the penalties imposed by KRS 367.990(1), the Attorney General may petition this Court to revoke or suspend Terminix’ right to operate part or all of its structural pest control business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, pursuant to KRS 367.200.

    8. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Consent Judgment, pursuant to KRS 367.990(2), the Defendants shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) payable to the Kentucky State Treasurer.

Kentucky Attorney General vs. Terminix.  Attorney General announces $800,000 Terminix settlement.  FRANKFORT, Ky. (Monday, January 4, 1999)--The Kentucky Office of the Attorney General and Terminix International today announced an $800,000 settlement of allegations relating to a 1994 Consent Judgment. As part of the Consent Judgment, Terminix was required to reinspect all homes treated for termites between 1989 and 1994 and where appropriate retreat and repair termite damage.

Maine