Leonard v. Terminix Intern. Co., LP
| Decision Date | 18 October 2002 |
| Citation | 854 So.2d 529 |
| Parties | Walter LEONARD, Jr., and Evalina Leonard v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, L.P., et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Michael Rediker, Patricia C. Diak, and Michael C. Skotnicki of Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Rediker, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellants.
John R. Chiles, Wilson F. Green, and Scott A. Boykin of Burr & Forman, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellees.
W. Pemble Delashmet and J. Robert Turnipseed of Pierce, Ledyard, Latta, Wasden & Bowron, P.C., Mobile; and Joana S. Ellis of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Defense Lawyers Association, in support of the application for rehearing.
Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Automobile Dealers Association of Alabama; Matthew C. McDonald and Kirkland E. Reid of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C., Mobile, for amici curiae Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, Alabama Retail Association, and The Business Council of Alabama; and H. Hampton Boles and Michael L. Edwards of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham, for amici curiae Alabama Bankers Association, Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, Alabama Retail Association, Automobile Dealers Association of Alabama, and The Business Council of Alabama, in support of the application for rehearing.
J. Mark Englehart of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for amici curiae Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, AARP, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, in opposition to the application for rehearing.
Steven P. Gregory of Dice & Gregory, L.L.C., Tuscaloosa, for amici curiae Alabama Arise and Alabama Watch, in opposition to the application for rehearing.
E.J. "Mac" McArthur, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama State Employees Association, in opposition to the application for rehearing.
David G. Wirtes, Jr., of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile; and Barry A. Ragsdale of Ivey & Ragsdale, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Trial Lawyers Association, in opposition to the application for rehearing.
Walter Leonard, Jr., and Evalina Leonard, representatives in this putative class action against Terminix International Company, L.P.; David L. Myers; Terminix International, Inc.; TSSGP Limited Partnership; Service Master Incorporated of Delaware; Service Master Consumer Services, L.P.; Service Master Company, L.P.; and TSSGP Management Corp. (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Terminix"), appeal from an order compelling arbitration of the dispute. We reverse and remand.
The Leonards became involved with Terminix in 1994, when they purchased a house. With that purchase, they also acquired the termite bond the seller had with Terminix. The real-estate transaction closed on August 19, 1994.
Within two months of the closing, the Leonards received through the mail a "Termite Protection Plan" ("the Plan"). The Plan provided, in pertinent part:
(Capitalization in original.)
The Plan provided for an annual renewal at the rate of $62 per year. Although the Plan was not signed by the Leonards, it designated "Walter Leonard" as the purchaser, and, at the top of the first page, stated: "TRANSFER TO NEW OWNER: 8/94." It also provided that "Terminix [would] inspect the identified property at any time the Purchaser request[ed] it or if Terminix believe[d] it necessary." The Leonards paid the renewal fees in 1995, 1996, and 1997.
In June 1996, the Leonards received through the mail a "Terminix Termite Guarantee" ("the Guarantee"), which purported to summarize the terms of the Plan. Specifically, it stated that Terminix would "[r]einspect the identified property at any time the purchaser request[ed] it or if Terminix believe[d] it [was] necessary." It also stated: "The Plan provides for arbitration of any controversy or claim arising out of or re[lat]ing to the Plan."
Also in 1996, Evalina Leonard telephoned Terminix to request a reinspection. At another time, when Terminix sales representatives were in the Leonards' neighborhood soliciting business, they asked Evalina if she would do business with Terminix. She told the representatives that she already had a contract with Terminix. However, between 1994 and 1997, Terminix had no occasion to repair or re-treat the Leonards' house. Thus, at all relevant times, Terminix applied no termiticide or chemicals to the premises.
Meanwhile, Terminix was engaged in a dispute with the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries ("the Department"). In that connection, the Department charged Terminix with violating Ala. Code 1975, § 2-28-9, which provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) More specifically, Terminix was charged with "[f]ailure to perform annual inspections on properties under subterranean termite contract for the year of 1995 and January, February and March of 1996." Ultimately, Terminix agreed to pay $1,200 to settle the dispute with the Department. As part of the settlement, Terminix was required to conduct "annual inspections of all properties under [its] subterranean termite contract[s]."
On May 6, 1997, the Leonards, "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated," filed a six-count complaint against Terminix. Count one was styled "Civil Tort for Criminal Conduct and Action for Statutory Penalties, Qui Tam." The essence of the complaint, as contained in count one, is that Terminix owed a statutory duty to all its customers to conduct annual inspections, see § 2-28-9, and that Terminix had systematically failed to do so. The plaintiffs further alleged that the violation of § 2-28-9 is a crime, as defined in Ala.Code 1975, § 2-28-11(a):
Specifically, count one alleged:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.
...that `"[t]he Legislature is endowed with the exclusive domain to formulate public policy in Alabama ...."'"4 Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So.2d 529, 534 (Ala.2002) (citations Justice Harwood states in his dissent that he would require that there be a manifest, physical injury before t......
-
Service Corp. Intern. v. Fulmer
...the plaintiff wishes not to be bound; "instead, [the plaintiff] must accept or reject the entire contract"); see also Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So.2d 529, 533 (plaintiffs who alleged unconscionability as a ground for avoiding arbitration sought rescission of their contracts with Se......
-
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
...terms of the underlying agreement, exceeded his power. The News also asserts that the arbitrators disregarded Leonard v. Terminix International Co., 854 So.2d 529 (Ala.2002). The News quotes from that case, however, only the statement that "limitations on damages that may be recovered are n......
-
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
...that "`[t]he Legislature is endowed with the exclusive domain to formulate public policy in Alabama.'"' Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So.2d 529, 534 (Ala. 2002) (citations Were this Court a legislative body, we would have for our consideration many more policy alternatives than the par......
-
Class arbitration: someone please forward a copy of the Bazzle decision to the Alabama Supreme Court.
...940 So. 2d 290, 294 (Ala. 2006); Birmingham News Co. v. Horn, 901 So. 2d 27, 44-45 (Ala. 2004); and Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 536 (Ala. (37) Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983). (38) 9 U.S.C.A. [section] 3 (West 2001). (39) See, ......
-
Class Actions - Thomas M. Byrne
...F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003). Some courts elsewhere have agreed. Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So. 2d 529 (Ala. 2002); State ex rel. Dunlap v. Berger, 567 S.E.2d 265 (W. Va. 2002). But many others, rebuff claims of unconscionability and enforce......
-
Binding predispute arbitration clauses in Alabama: a checkered past but a solid future.
...on a free-standing arbitration agreement signed by the buyers and the mobile home dealer). (66) Compare Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., 854 So. 2d 529, 539 (Ala. 2002) (holding that an arbitration clause which prohibited class actions was both unconscionable and unenforceable), with Lawrence......
-
Section 34 Class Waivers - A Special Case of Unconscionability
...effect affords the defendant immunity is unconscionable.'" Whitney, 173 S.W.3d at 309 (quoting Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 854 So.2d 529, 536 (Ala. 2002)). With this test in mind, the authors brought several challenges to arbitration clauses beginning in 2006. See,e.g.: · Woods v. ......