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

The following questions were sent via e-mail on February 27, 1999, to the State of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture. On March 4, the answers shown below were provided via e-mail by Joe Uram.

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

The state agency responsible for regulating the pest control industry in Pennsylvania is the PA Department of Agriculture (PDA).

No address provided.

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

The PDA does not maintain records of complaints received by the Department.  The PDA does maintain files on pesticide investigations which were conducted in the past seven years.

3. How many Terminix branches are currently operating in Pennsylvania?  (My records indicate there are currently 48 Terminix, aka Terminix International, aka Terminix Termite & Pest Control branches operating in Pennsylvania.)

At present, there are 14 Terminix offices licensed with the PDA to provide pesticide application services.  There are numerous Terminix locations that contract customers only and not apply pesticides.  Only those location which apply pesticides are required to be licensed by the PDA.

4. In Pennsylvania, does each Terminix branch operate under a separate license or do all the Terminix branches operate under one license?

The PA Pesticide Control Act requires each business location that applies pesticides in Pennsylvania to obtain a pesticide application business license.

5. How many complaints, if any, have been filed in Pennsylvania 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.)?

Following is a list of enforcement actions taken against Terminix companies by the PDA. These actions resulted from investigations conducted by the PDA.

• 1998 - No actions.
• 1997 - No actions.
• 1996 - Terminix - Lancaster, PA - $100 fine for failure to pre-notify a PA hypersensitive person.
• 1995 - No actions.
• 1994 - Terminix - Harrisburg, PA - Notice of Warning for product use.  Terminix - Gradyville, PA - Notice of Warning for product use. Terminix - Norristown, PA - Notice of Warning for product use.
• 1993 - Terminix - Havertown, PA - Notice of Warning for product use.
• 1992 - Terminix - Haverford, PA - Notice of Warning for product use.

A search for Terminix and Terminex lawsuits in Pennsylvania at the KnowX.com web site resulted in 98 cases from 3/82 to 6/99 (defendant 95; plaintiff 3).

Terminix vs. Michael and Joanne Kay.  The Terminix International Company, L.P., Plaintiff, v. Michael and Joanne Kay, Defendants; Civ. A. No. 92-5782; United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, Sept. 3, 1993.

Customers of pest control company moved for Rule 11 sanctions claiming that, under controlling authority, company had no right to prospectively enjoin customers from posting signs on their property containing allegedly defamatory statements about company and that company probably knew this before seeking injunction.  The District Court, Robreno, J., held that:  (1) company’s counsel’s ignorance of the controlling authority was not reasonable; (2) customers’ counsel’s requested attorney fees of $10,087.50 would be reduced by 50 percent to $5,043.88; and (3) payment of Rule 11 sanction would be made by company’s attorney and not company since Rule 11 breach involved issue of law solely within competency of counsel.

Terminix brought action against Michael and Joanne Kay, alleging they had published defamatory communications concerning Terminix and had harmed their goodwill among current and prospective customers. On or about April 19, 1992, Terminix treated the Kay’s residence for termite infestation. The Kay’s contend that as a result, their residence became contaminated with “at least hundreds of gallons of oil.” A dispute, therefore, arose as to whether Terminix was liable for the alleged contamination of the Kay residence and, if so, what compensation the Kay’s should receive as a result of Terminix’s alleged action.  When the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the Kay’s erected the following sign on their residential property:

DANGER
TERMINEX HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
TERMINEX CONTAMINATED OUR HOME
POISONED OUR FAMILY
FAMILY OF 6 HOMELESS SINCE APRIL
TO HEAR TERMINEX (sic) LIE CALL 889-1639
TO HEAR THE TRUTH CALL 666-1096
OVER $500,000 DAMAGE

Together with the complaint, Terminix filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging that the statements made by the Kay’s were actionable per se under Pennsylvania law and seeking to enjoin them from posting on their property the sign containing the allegedly defamatory statements. At a conference before Judge Ludwig, the Kay’s agreed to remove the sign while settlement negotiations were conducted. On Dec. 11, 1992, Terminix advised the Court that it was withdrawing its request for a preliminary injunction; and on Dec. 16, Terminix filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)92), contending that because defendants had subsequently filed a toxic tort personal injury action against Terminix in state court, judicial economy would “not be served if the parties litigate two actions in two different forums when the underlying facts of each action arise from the same nucleus of events.”

Kenneth and Brenda Carll vs. Terminix.  Mr. and Mrs. Carll and their four children allege they sustained numerous severe and permanent injuries as a result of negligent application of pesticides in and around their home. Superior Court of Pennsylvania opinion, filed February 21, 2002, denied Terminix’s appeal to compel arbitration stating, “Accordingly, finding the instant arbitration provision violates public policy, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.”.

Reportedly from 1992 through 1998 (as shown above) -- a $100 fine and five (5) warning notices.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection News Release:  Terminix Pays $225,000 Penalty for Severe Fish Kill.

The following letter was submitted to Terminix -- Consumer Alert!

You may want to look into this.  I attended a termite update seminar and learned a major company doing business in Pennsylvania is no longer performing liquid treatments.  Although the company name was not revealed, there are rumors (and we know how they can be) Terminix is no longer permitted to perform liquid termite treatments in the state. The speaker also noted this had to do with a water/stream/creek contamination.

There has been much ado about the fish kill in western Pennsylvania a few years ago as referred to on your site.

I have also learned the local branch, which serves central Pennsylvania, has reduced its staff of termite technicians from four Sentricon routes to two routes and pest control technicians are now performing Sentricon inspections. Very interesting.

This would explain a complaint submitted by a Pennsylvanian (posted on this web site as Sentricon Complaint S-24); wherein, he stated, “Terminix tells me that the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection prohibits them from using the chemical treatment; because, in a totally separate area of the home, there is a French drain.” If the above is true, there was no “because” as explained by Terminix; therefore, Terminix lied about the reason this person needed to purchase a Sentricon system, which they “generously” offered at the discounted rate of $1,000, rather than to go with the conventional treatment, which would cost $350. Incidentally, this person wrote to the PA DEP; and the last I heard, he had not received a reply.