How many complaints and lawsuits involving Terminix have been filed in New Mexico? How does the State of New Mexico rate as a public agency in providing information to the public and in their own knowledge of pest control companies spraying toxic chemicals in homes, businesses, and schools?

The following questions were asked in letter dated March 1, 1999, to the State of New Mexico, Department of Agriculture and answered March 12 by Jeff Witte, Custodian of Public Documents with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture:

• What is the name and address of New Mexico’s pest inspection/pest control licensing and regulating agency?

New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Pesticide Management, MSC 3AQ
P.O. Box 30005
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

• How many years does New Mexico’s licensing and regulating agency maintain records of complaints against pest control/pest inspection companies?

Records of alleged violations and investigations are kept for seven years from the fiscal year in which they occurred.

• How many Terminix branches are currently operating in New Mexico?  My records, taken from the Yellow Pages on the Internet, indicate there are currently three to five Terminix, aka Terminix International branches operating in New Mexico:

New Mexico does not license branches or companies. Individuals are certified and licensed as commercial applicators.  Terminix has a total of six supervising commercial applicators licensed in New Mexico. Only one of these is physically located in New Mexico; the other five have out-of-state addresses.

• In New Mexico, does each Terminix branch operate under a separate license or do all the Terminix branches operate under one license?

Again, we do not license the company or branch.  Each branch operates under a designated supervising commercial applicator who is certified and licensed by us.  One commercial applicator may be the supervisor over multiple branches.

• How many complaints, if any, have been filed in New Mexico 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.)?

This information is from our hard files, which go back through the 1996 fiscal year.  If you require information from 1992-1995, please let me know.  Because information from those years has been microfilmed and is not readily available, it would take us several weeks to collect.

Three complaints have been filed with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture against Terminix from 1996 through today’s date.

• One complaint involved a realtor who felt that Terminix had not properly honored its warranty.  This case was closed with no action taken following investigation.
• Another complaint alleged ineffective termite treatment and resulted in a warning letter to the commercial applicator.
• The final complaint involved licensing violations and resulted in enforcement action (alternative penalty payment plus supplemental corrective action).

Vigil, Romano, and Bielicki-Cooper vs. Terminix.  Three state prison workers who said they suffered nerve damage from a pesticide used against cockroaches won more than $2 million in a lawsuit against Terminix.  A federal jury in Albuquerque ordered Terminix International LP, represented by Tim Hale of Albuquerque, to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiffs, Cyndy Vigil, Marta Romano, and Vicky Bielicki-Cooper.  US District Judge John Conway allowed the punitive damages after finding the company acted recklessly.  The three women were food service employees at the Penitentiary of New Mexico in April 1997, when Terminix sprayed a pesticide named Conquer.  They suffered neurological damages and other illnesses after a Terminix worker sprayed the pesticide while they worked in the prison kitchen, said their attorney Merit Bennett of Santa Fe. “These companies used very toxic chemicals cavalierly, and after they hurt you, they say you’re not hurt,” he said. Terminix is appealing...

Terminix Loses Appeal (Bielicki v. Terminix Intern. Co., L.P., Case No. 98-2349, 2000 WL 1260337, 10th Cir. (N.M.)).  On September 6, 2000, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling by the U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, stating, “The evidence supporting our conclusion that Terminix authorized, participated in, or ratified Sanchez’s conduct... establishes Terminix’s indifference to, and reckless disregard for, the health and safety of the plaintiffs.”  They further stated, “Because the atmosphere of condoning disregard of safety concerns resulted in permanent physical injuries to the plaintiff, we cannot denounce the award as excessive based on lack of reprehensibility.”