ServiceMaster (SVM)

Since this is a consumer complaint web site about Terminix®, and Terminix is a major subsidiary of ServiceMaster®, I couldn’t very well do this site justice without including information, lawsuits, and complaints about the parent company and the other subsidiaries.

Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Completes ServiceMaster Transaction (July 07)

ServiceMaster Companies

As of March 1, 2001, ServiceMaster had the following subsidiaries:

  • American Home Shield Corporation (17 subsidiaries -- warranty contracts for home systems and appliances) -- Complaints.
  • American Residential Services L.L.C. (35 subsidiaries, including but not limited to, American Mechanical Services -- electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning services) -- Complaints.
  • AmeriSpec, Inc. (home inspections; wholly-owned subsidiary of American Home Shield) -- Complaint.
  • Anticimex Development AB (5 subsidiaries)
  • Barefoot Grass Lawn Services, Inc.
  • Barefoot Services L.L.C.
  • CMI Group, The
  • Dallas Pest and Termite - a division of Terminix
  • Furniture Medic, Inc. (on-site furniture repair and restoration)
  • Furniture Medic Limited Partnership
  • Halliwell Engineering Associates L.L.C.
  • LTCS Investment Limited Partnership
  • Merry Maids, Inc. (domestic housekeeping services)
  • Merry Maids Limited Partnership
  • Rescue Rooter L.L.C. (plumbing and drain cleaning services)
  • Riwa B.V.
  • ServiceMaster Acceptance Corporation
  • ServiceMaster Acceptance Company Limited Partnership, The
  • ServiceMaster AM Limited Partnership
  • ServiceMaster Aviation L.L.C.
  • ServiceMaster Aviation Management Corporation
  • ServiceMaster Aviation Services Limited Partnership
  • ServiceMaster Company Limited Partnership, The
  • ServiceMaster Consumer Services, Inc.
  • ServiceMaster Consumer Services Limited Partnership
  • ServiceMaster Employer Services, Inc. (4 subsidiaries)
  • ServiceMaster Holding Corporation
  • ServiceMaster Home Health Care Services Inc.
  • ServiceMaster Limited
  • ServiceMaster Management Services, Inc.
  • ServiceMaster Management Corporation
  • ServiceMaster Management Services Limited Partnership
  • ServiceMaster Japan, Inc.
  • ServiceMaster Operations Germany GmbH
  • ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Limited Partnership
  • ServiceMaster Residential/Commercial Services Management Corporation
  • ServiceMaster Strategic Limited Partnership
  • Steward Insurance Company
  • The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership (termite and pest control services) -- Complaints.
  • Terminix International, Inc.
  • Terminix B.V.
  • Terminix GmbH & Co. KG
  • Terminix Ltd. (35 subsidiaries)
  • TMX-Europe B.V.
  • TruGreen Holding L.L.C.
  • TruGreen, Inc.
  • TruGreen Landcare L.L.C. (17 subsidiaries -- commercial landscaping and tree services)
  • TruGreen Limited Partnership (“TruGreen ChemLawn” -- lawn care, tree and shrub services) -- Complaints.
  • We Serve America, Inc.
  • WeServeHomes.com, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
  • To Honor God In All We Do
  • To Help People Develop
  • To Pursue Excellence
  • To Grow Profitably

These are excellent company objectives; and any company, with adequate capital, following these objectives would undoubtedly thrive and prosper. Unfortunately, based on what many of us have personally experienced, it is obvious the only company objective ServiceMaster pursues is “To Grow Profitably” -- no matter whom they harm; and we find it outrageous and unconscionable ServiceMaster routinely blasphemes and defiles the Lord’s name, in direct violation of one of His Ten Commandments, for their greed.

ServiceMaster Lawsuits

The following are just a smidgen of the numerous lawsuits against ServiceMaster and/or its subsidiaries:

  • Linda C. Palka v. ServiceMaster - “Nurse Palka was injured as a result of ServiceMaster’s negligent performance....”
     
  • Sharon L. Suggs v. ServiceMaster - “Sharon L. Suggs, a black female, claimed that her termination was based on sex or race.  The district court awarded judgment to Suggs and ordered ServiceMaster to reinstate her...”
     
  • DAPA, Inc. - “Since this cause is before the court on a declaratory judgment, the court is not concerned with the relationship of DAPA, Inc., dba ServiceMaster of Tupelo and the ServiceMaster Company Limited Partnership...”
     
  • Winifred Martin vs. Long Term Care Foundation of Charleston, SC, and Diversified Health Services, a division of ServiceMaster - Negligence cost a woman her right leg; jury returns $20,000,000 verdict.
     
  • Ray D. Martin v. ServiceMaster - Ray Martin, a former salesman, lost his job and $182,000 in commissions. On 9/13/99, a Fulton County, Georgia, jury awarded $1.2 million in actual damages and $135 million in punitive damages to Ray Martin for wrongful termination and breach of contract. ServiceMaster Co. appealed.
     
    • 9/13/99 -  Fulton County, Georgia, jury awarded Ray Martin $136,281,000
    • 12/13/99 - Fulton County, Georgia, judge (TV’s Judge Hatchett) elected by ServiceMaster as director

    ServiceMaster’s appeal resulted in the trial court reducing the compensatory award to $461,000 and the punitive damages award to $45,000,000.

    ServiceMaster appealed again; and on November 19, 2001, announced “the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's decision in the case of Ray D. Martin v. ServiceMaster. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Martin's claim should have been limited to breach of his employment contract. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial, noting that Mr. Martin was not entitled to punitive damages and that ServiceMaster's motion to dismiss the tort claims should have been granted.”

    On January 21, 2002, ServiceMaster announced “that the case of Ray D. Martin v. ServiceMaster has been settled out of court. The total compensatory damages and fees paid by the Company were under $1 million.”

  • “Schools attempt to recoup ServiceMaster money.” In a Tennessean.com article December 12, 2000, Barbara Esteves-Moore, Staff Writer, stated, “Williamson County Schools has started taking steps to recoup money from ServiceMaster, the company that terminated its contract to clean district schools and left many schools uncleaned for weeks.”  At a special board meeting, board member Mike Cherry stated, “I want it publicly on the record that when a vendor does contract with the system (and does not honor its contract), we will punish them in every way humanly possible.”
     
  • Reber v. ServiceMaster - Indiana:  A story published by the Indianapolis Star on 8/12/01, states Dennis and Debbie Reber recently filed a lawsuit alleging that ServiceMaster did a poor job removing moisture from their 4,600-square-foot home, causing toxic mold to grow throughout the house. According to the report, attempts to clear the mold have already cost $43,000, and current estimates predict cost of removal to be $100,000. The article says that Allstate, the Rebers’ insurer, will only partially cover the cost of remediation efforts.
     
  • Judith Mercer vs. ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P.
    Date Filed:  2001
    Court: Court of Common Pleas, Georgetown, South Carolina
    Cause(s) of Action:  Negligence
    Plaintiff’s Attorney:  Angus Lawton; North Charleston, SC
    Defendant’s Attorneys: Carl Fisher, Chicago, IL; John Wilkerson, Charleston, SC)
     
  • Green vs. ServiceMaster:  Pamela Green and Marcus Green vs. W.R.M. & Associates, Ltd. d/b/a ServiceMaster Building Maintenance. Before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Eastern Division, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Green asserts that shortly after her employment began, her supervisor, John Peters, made lewd sexual comments, gestures, and promises in return for sexual favors. Green asserts that as a result of refusing Peters’ advances and reporting his conduct, she was denied job advancements, raises, and excluded from company gatherings.
     
  • Durant vs. ServiceMaster:  Dale Durant and Deborah Durant, Plaintiffs, vs. ServiceMaster Co., Trugreen, Inc., and Trugreen Ltd. P’Ship, Defendants. Before the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern District, Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ allege Defendants wrongly added a “fuel” surcharge” of one dollar to customers’ bills beginng “no later than June 2000” and ending “no sooner than December 2000.” Plaintiffs will seek certification as a class and assert the following claims against Defendants:  (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); (2) breach of contract; (3) violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“the MCPA”); and (4) unjust enrichment.
ServiceMaster Complaints