Trimper vs. Terminix

$215,000,000 civil suit against Terminix in New York -- “2 dead, 3 injured, 3 years homeless.”

"The June 19 article said the effects of pesticides in schools include ‘headache, nausea, vomiting, flu-like symptoms, rashes, respiratory irritation and behavioral disturbances.’ What the article should have said is that these reactions would result from pesticide misuse."
- Shawn Duffy, "guest essayist"
June 27, 2000, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

According to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, "Duffy, of Rochester, is a branch manager with the Terminix International Co., and a board member of the New York State Pest Management Association. However, the views here are strictly his own." Mr. Duffy was the "branch manager" who was in the Trimper home on March 6, 1997, to rectify the termite infestation. Despite the Trimper's ailments, Duffy's solution was to add more pesticide.

April 2, 1999, in New York State Supreme Court, County of Schenectady, Mr. Bruce Trimper and Mrs. Karen Trimper, individually and as parents and legal guardians of Kyle Trimper, filed a 93-count lawsuit against Terminix International of Memphis, Tennessee. Summons #990648 was issued by the state of New York on behalf of plaintiff’s attorney, Harris Beach & Wilcox of Syracuse & Albany, New York.

This lawsuit was featured in an article posted January 25, 2000 at CNN.com, “Pesticide on trial with EPA.” If you read nothing else, please read that article and think about a little three-year old boy (now six) and the suffering he and his parents have endured. If you are a parent, how would you feel to have to watch helplessly while your child is suffering? What would you do? What would any normal person in this situation think of a company that proclaims to “honor God in all they do,” especially when the company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the contract signed by the Trimpers voids their claims -- not on whether or not the case has any merit but on a legal technicality! Perhaps this case has no merit (which I don’t believe for one second), but exposing the facts of this case are in the best interests of public safety. This case needs to be heard and argued in a public court of law, and the outcome needs to be made public, not hidden through binding arbitration.

Additionally, the State of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has a web site which lists consent orders, hearings, mediations, etc.; and yet, the signed Consent Order with Terminix, referenced below, has never been posted on DEC’s own web site. Is this a cover-up by the DEC? Who benefits from this public agency not making public information available to the public?

Petition to Intervene, Case No. R4-1977-97-05. February 9, 1999 -- The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("Department") Region 4 Staff ("Staff") commenced the instant civil administrative enforcement proceeding against The Terminix International Company, L.P. ("Respondent"), for alleged violations of Article 33 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"), and 6 NYCRR Part 325 et seq., related to applications of pesticide at a residence....

Order on Consent, Case No. R4-1977-97-05. On August 17, 2000, Terminix conceded to the state of New York's mandate to clean up their mess at 1033 Day Road, Rotterdam, New York, as a result of two pesticide misapplications in April and August 1996. Dursban, the product misapplied, has since (June 8, 2000) been banned by the EPA from use during residential pesticide application because of its toxicity. In addition to the cost of the remediation, the State of New York felt it necessary to fine the company $11,000. The scale of remediation should indicate the severity of the offense. It's assumed, upon proper completion, the Trimper family will be able to return to their home, after nearly three years of seeking shelter elsewhere. “No admission of liability or guilt...”

Two misapplications, four years prior, of excessive amounts of Dursban TC, drove remedial workers, paid for by Terminix, to remove the contaminated soil (6'x20'x30") under the family room and dining room in the Trimper residence. The contaminated cinderblock wall and basement steps will also need to be removed and disposed.

For additional information on this case, the June 12, 1999, issue of Pesticide Report, written by Sue Darcey, features the Trimper v. Terminix case and includes:

Dursban TC inerts Benzene, Trimethylbenzene, Suspects in Boy’s Illness Following Termiticide Mishap.
Dursban TC Reverse Engineered by New York Department of Health
New York DEC Finds Fault with Termiticide Application
Reverse Engineering Finds Host of Toxic Compounds
At Least 122 Incidents Involving Dursban TC, Equity Found in FIFRA 6(a)(2) Database
EPA Inerts Policy: Still No Formal Response to Environmentalists/State AG Petition
Terminix Has Been a Target of Enforcement Actions in Several States

"Terminix and Dow Chemical have ruined life, as we knew it. They have deprived our son of a normal childhood. In an altruistic act, I am committed and will succeed in leaving a different kind of indelible mark on both of them!"

Read by Tina Williams at the NCAMP conference in New York City, April 8, 2000, on behalf of Mr. Bruce Trimper.