Wilcher v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.

Decision Date04 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 55090,55090,1
Citation145 Ga.App. 551,244 S.E.2d 101
PartiesJ. T. WILCHER v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

J. Walter Cowart, Savannah, for appellant.

Corish & Smith, Malberry Smith, Jr., Savannah, M. Kenneth Doss, Atlanta, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

"Termite case." Wilcher, the appellant-homeowner, filed a two-count complaint against Orkin Exterminating Co. (Orkin) for damages resulting from termite infestation of his house. Both counts sounded in tort, the first alleging negligence by Orkin in failing to properly treat Wilcher's home and the second alleging negligence and/or wilful concealment in the issuance by Orkin of a "Termite Report" describing the status of Wilcher's house prior to his purchase of it. From the grant of summary judgment in favor of Orkin as to both counts, Wilcher appeals. Held :

1. Count one of Wilcher's complaint is controlled adversely by this court's holding in Orkin Ext. Co. v. Stevens, 130 Ga.App. 363, 203 S.E.2d 587, where the court examined a liability limitation clause in a contract virtually identical to the liability limitation clause contained in the contract between the parties to this appeal and concluded that the limitation clause precluded the recovery of damages under tort or contract theory. The Stevens court stated clearly that " . . . the same contract which raises Orkin's duty to (Wilcher) limits that duty to retreatment, and (Wilcher) has not contended that Orkin failed to retreat the premises when requested. The description on the original contract of the type guaranty to be issued, and the guaranty itself, make clear that Orkin in no way assumed responsibility under that type guaranty as opposed to other Orkin guaranties for any structural damage caused by termites if its treatments should be unsuccessful. Because Orkin as a private citizen owed plaintiff no duty except that assumed by the contract, there is no impediment to its limiting its contract liability by such a provision, and such limitations are usually valid. 5 Corbin 385, § 1068 supra. Absent a limiting statute or controlling public policy, parties may contract with one another on whatever terms they wish (cits.), and the written contract defines the full extent of their rights and duties. (Cit.)" Id., p. 368, 203 S.E.2d p. 592.

2. Count 2 of the complaint fares no better. While Wilcher alleges negligence or concealment on the part of Orkin in its issuance of a "Termite...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Menard v. Orkin, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-0019
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • October 16, 2018
    ...S.E.2d 587 (Ga. App. 1973); Worth v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., 234 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. App. 1977); Wilcher v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., 244 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. App. 1978); and Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. v. Walters, 466 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. App. 1984) (abrogated on other grounds ......
  • Johnson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 89-5241.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • August 31, 1990
    ...Orkin should not be allowed to limit its liability under such circumstances. Id. 234 S.E.2d at 804. In Wilcher v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., 145 Ga.App. 551, 244 S.E.2d 101 (1978), an action was brought against Orkin for damages arising from termite infestation. The original contrac......
  • Buchanan v. Georgia Boy Pest Control Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1982
    ... ... See Wilcher v. Orkin ... Exterminating Co., 145 Ga.App. 551, 552(2), 244 S.E.2d 101 (1978). The trial court, ... ...
  • Stefan Jewelers, Inc. v. Electro-Protective Corp., ELECTRO-PROTECTIVE
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1982
    ...129 Ga.App. 32, 198 S.E.2d 389; Brown v. Five Points Parking Center, 121 Ga.App. 819, 175 S.E.2d 901; Wilcher v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., 145 Ga.App. 551, 552, 244 S.E.2d 101. We are concerned here in consideration of the first enumeration of error as to whether the contract in qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT