Based on the Structural Pest Control Board pamphlet, I did not expect the SPCB could help us obtain restitution from Terminix.  Furthermore, we did not need help from the Structural Pest Control Board as we were taking care of our problems with Terminix and the realtors through litigation. I did, however, believe that as the licensing agency, the Structural Pest Control Board had a right to know and should be aware of the conduct of their licensee, Terminix.

On May 17, 1993, before the two-year statute of limitations expired for filing a complaint with the Structural Pest Control Board, I filed a complaint against Terminix International Co. L.P. with the Structural Pest Control Board and attached the two pest inspection reports issued by Terminix and the pest inspection report issued by Parish Termites. In the complaint, I stated the reasons for my complaint and that Terminix was a codefendant in a pending civil suit.

I received a postcard from the Structural Pest Control Board that acknowledged receipt of my complaint re: Board Case No. 93-922 and that stated, "Please do not make changes or alterations to any areas of the structure involved in this matter."  (We financially couldn't afford to make any changes or alterations.)

I received a letter from Gayle Yamada of the Structural Pest Control Board, instructing me to review an enclosed letter from Terminix's attorney, Kathleen Williams, and contact the SPCB with my comments. Ms. Yamada stated that if I did not respond, the matter would be considered settled and our file closed. I was outraged that even though the SPCB had the three pest inspection reports, they would close our file based solely on statements made by an attorney representing Terminix.

In a four-page letter dated June 11, 1993, I responded to Gayle Yamada's letter and refuted all the disinformation and outrageous comments contained in Kathleen Williams’ letter.  I received no reply to any of the comments in my letter.

On July 12, 1993, Charles Peterson, the Structural Pest Control Board Specialist, inspected the property.  While questioning me prior to his inspection, he told me he used to work for Terminix. During his inspection, he took several Polaroid photographs of the damages Terminix had failed to report and showed them to me. He seemed to be amazed at the extent of dry rot damage, especially under the toilet in one of the bathrooms, as he repeatedly commented on the fact that when he inserted his screwdriver into the dry rot, the screwdriver went in completely up to the handle. He showed me the buckled vinyl floor covering in front of the shower in the master bathroom and stated it indicated probable water damage to the subfloor. Then he informed me that the bathroom floors were not built to code.

It was bad enough we had unreported dry rot in both bathrooms; now we learned both bathroom floors need to be completely rebuilt to meet building code requirements.  (If the bathroom floors were not built to code, were any of the floors built to code?) We believed Terminix and the real estate agents/brokers could not possibly be expected to know the bathroom floors were not built to code; therefore, we did not add the cost to rebuild them in any of the estimates of nondisclosed damages.  This is, however, something that probably would have been discovered if repairs had been done -- if Terminix had disclosed the buckled floor covering before we purchased the house.

Mr. Peterson sent a Letter to Terminix with his Report of Findings, wherein he stated he examined the property; that Terminix had violated the Structural Pest Control Act by failing to report damages and failing to post an inspection tag; and:

Your termite inspection or activities regarding the property are not in compliance with the Structural Pest Control Act and Rules and Regulations. Within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of this notice, you must do the following:

Terminix never contacted us for access to the property nor made any attempt to bring the property into compliance as instructed by the Structural Pest Control Board.

As the Structural Pest Control Board Specialist, Mr. Peterson was the most qualified and credible person to testify regarding the pest inspection reports, the findings of the Structural Pest Control Board, and the standard of care of pest control companies. As the Structural Pest Control Board Specialist and a former Terminix employee, he was the most qualified and credible person to testify against Terminix.  Mr. Peterson very willingly agreed to testify at trial as our pest control industry expert witness.