J&j TERMITE extermination company OF Alexandria, Louisiana

petition  FOR DAMAGES

ROBERT L. NOE, ET. AL.  Plaintiff                                                                                      march 5,  2015

VS

J & J EXTERMINATING CO., INC., ET. AL. defendant

A

Plaintiffs avers J & J EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., did violate their Contractual Obligations entered into on March 12, 2010 by failing to properly treat the property in 2010; failed to properly inspect the home as required; failed to control the termite infestation; submission of fraudulent inspection reports; DOCUMENTING FALSE TREATMENT REPORT, and allowing the termite to do extensive damage to the home?s FLOOR joist; HEADER JOIST; girder FRAMING and subflooring IN FRONT OF HOUSE AND THE FRONT SIDES OF the house, TO the WALL IN the children?s and master?s bedroom. AND TO POSSIBLE UNKNOWN HIDDEN DAMAGE TO BE DISCOVERED AS REPAIRS ARE MADE. (SEE EXHIBIT "A.(1)" FLOOR FRAMING & WALL TERMINOLOGY)  (EXHIBIT "A.(2) diagram showing FLOOR FRAMING areas of damage) AND (See  Exhibit "B",  CONTRACT WITH J&J EXTERMINATION COMPANY DATED MARCH 13, 2010)   

B

In conjunction with the contract, J&J conducted an initial inspection on March 12, 2010 and cited in the inspection graph/report "ST"(MEANING SUB TERRANEAN TERMITES) in all areas under the house and that Termites were Swarming.  j&J falsied the intitial inspection report by citing ST (sub terranean termites) were in locations where they were not.  inspections by TERMINEX ON JANUARY 8, 2015 (para ?f? below) AND MR. BRYAN of J&J ON JANUARY 12, 2015 (para ?g? below) STATES NO TERMITE ACTIVITY IN BACK UNDER THE HOUSE and when applying the initial treatment on January 14, 2015, the treatment was only to the front of the house as there was no termite issues in the back of the house, (see paragraph ?h? BELOW),  as well as 3 pictures taken on march 3, 2015 shows this area of the house has never had a termite issue.  (See EXHIBIT "C" J&J INSPECTION GRAPH MARCH 12, 2010) and ( P. THREE PHOTO'S OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE SHOWING NO TERMITE ACTIVITY NOW OR EVER.)

C

J&J service person treating the home in march 2010 falisied his service report submitted to j&J documenting he treated UNDER the house with 25 gallons of chemicals.  THE TREATING SERVICE PERSON did not go under the house. THIS SERVICE PERSON informed Plaintiff?s spouse that he could not treat under the house because of the house being so close to Bayou Roberts and it would be illegal to do so. He installed a number of green containers around the house and shed, telling Plaintiffs that would solve the problem with the termites and these green containers would be inspected annually. Relying upon the expertise of J&J, Plaintiff accepted J&J plan of action with the SENTRICON system. j&j employee and supervisor, ON three occassions cited the treating service person as having documenting he treated under the house with 25 gallons of chemicals see paragraph  e, g, and h below.  J&J also misrepresented the proper purpose and effectiveness of the sentricon system in eleminating the termites under the house (See EXHIBIT "E" PARAGRAPH 2;  AFFIDAVIT BY KATHY NOE and EXHIBIT "F" THE SENTRICON SYSTEM DESTROYS TERMITE COLONIES

D

On December 29, 2014 , Plaintiff went under the house and found sever termite damage and intact mud tubes throughout under the front of the house and in one area, the damage PRESENTS a safety hazard.   Plaintiff scratched the bottom of a mud tube from the ground running up along the brick work to the Header Joist to find small white insects (Termites), not ants.  Plaintiff took a picture of the mud tube and termite destruction under the children's bedroom.  (See EXHIBIT "G" PICTURES UNDER CHILDREN'S BEDROOM).

E

Plaintiff's spouse reported THE damage/termites to J&J via telephone on two different dates with no response. PLAINTIFF?S SPOUSE then personally went to the office to file a complaint.  Plaintiff's spouse states the person she spoke with started being very defensive about the complaint saying that according to J&J's records the home was treated with 25 gallons of chemical and there was termite damage. Plaintiff's spouse avers she told the agent that was not correct as the person who came out to treat the home initially in 2010 declared he could not, because the house was too close to the waterway AND ALL TERMITE DAMAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED BEFORE HIRING J&J. FALSE DOCUMENTATION OF TREATMENT IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE MASS INFESTATION OF TERMITES AND EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. HAD TREATMENT BEEN APPLIED AND PROPER INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED, THE HOME WOULD BE TERMITE FREE. (SEE EXHIBIT "E" PARAGRAPH 3, AFFIDAVIT BY KATHY NOE).

F

Plaintiff contacted another Termite Exterminating Company to change service providers.  Terminix sent out a representative on January 8, 2015 , who went under the house to make an inspection.  Plaintiff informed the Terminix representative that Plaintiff had a contract with J&J but wanted to change providers and that J&J was coming out to inspect the damage/termites based on the complaint filed.   After the Terminix's inspection,  the inspector reports he found extensive ?intact termite mud tubes? and damage throughout in the ?front part of the house? on the wood against the wall (Header Joists) and FLOOR JOISTS INCLuding damage to the replacement structures (Newer Wood) that had been installed, he also stated he found active termite activity BY scratchING at the base to expose the activity, not wanting to damage the tunnels as to have them intact when J&J came out to inspect.  The inspector further reported seeing etching of the old tunnels ON BRICK WALL AND PILING, but no broken tunnels and the active termites have been under the house for a long time. TERMINIX INSPECTOR FURTHER REPORTED HE FOUND NO TERMITE ACTIVITY, ETCHINGS OR DAMAGE TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.  Plaintiff asked the Terminix inspector about the effectiveness of the Sentricon System as a treatment to eliminate termites from under the home, the inspector related that Terminix invented the Sentricon System and J&J's assertion that the system would treat the home was not the purpose of the Sentricon system, it was designed to eliminate termites coming to the home, there is no reason for termites under the home to leave since they already had a food source from the wood under the house and the house should have been treated chemically underneath to kill them with the Sentricon system as a preventative measure to keep termite away.  Terminix Inspector's written inspection states the date of the inspection is dated 2/13/2015, but that is when the report WAS FINALIZED AND PRESENTED to Plaintiff, not the date of inspection, which was on January 8, 2015.  Terminix inspection was before J&J inspector came out on January 12, 2015 and treatment on January 14, 2015 .  The report findings are; "damage on both sides of crawl entrance left corner bedroom along front of house and pillar in middle of front of house, active termites at these locations with tunnels." (See EXHIBIT "H" INSPECTION REPORT BY TERMINIX DATE OF INSPECTION FEBRUARY 13, 3015 OF THE INSPECTION MADE ON JANUARY 8, 2015)

G

January12, 2015; J&J pest control representative, Bryan, arrived for inspection pursuant to the complaint filed. He went under the house to INSPECT; when he emerged he spoke to Plaintiff's spouse, stating he found a lot of tubes where termites live and crawl (confirming Terminix?s inspection). He stated he did not find any activity, But did find ants, he also said that there is now a lot of damage along the entire front of the house. He then said the damage looked like water damage. Plaintiff's spouse informed him, it could not be water damage as there are no water sources in the front 4 rooms, all sinks/bathroom/showers are in the back of the house and there are no water pipes under the 4 front rooms.  Plaintiff's spouse states the J&J agent then showed her a paper that was singed by another employee that stated that 25 gallons of a chemical was used under the house in 2010. Plaintiff's spouse AVERS SHE told him that they (J&J) did not use any liquid at all under the house. The agent then stated that the guy must have because he wrote that he did. Plaintiff's spouse then told him that the guy TREATING THE HOME said they cannot use any liquid or chemicals within 50ft of the water way .  The J&J agent, BRYAN, then admitted ?that is true? He then stated ?WE have a new chemical that they can use up to 5 feet from the water way .?  The J&J agents then informed Plaintiff?s SPOUSE that he will have someone call in the next 15 minutes to set up a time to come out here and treat the entire front part of the house.  This J&J agent, BRYAN , stated to Plaintiff's spouse he could not determine when the damage was done, but admitted that J&J failed to properly service the home. (See EXHIBIT "E", PARAGRAPH  4, AFFIDAVIT, PARAGRAPH D BY KATHY NOE)

H

On January 14, 2014 , J&J's supervisor and employee arrived and both went under the home to treat for termites. After treatment, the supervisor stated to Plaintiff's spouse that he dug A trench and employee sprayed behind him. Supervisor and employee took approximately 15 minutes to complete this job, reporting they sprayed the entire front part of the house, he also stated that they ?knocked down all the tunnels made by termites.? Plaintiff's spouse asked how much chemicals did they use, the supervisor said ?70 gallons?. The employee asked Plaintiff's spouse to sign the paperwork, but the paperwork showed they used 40 gallons and noted it was DOCUMENTED AS A "RETREAT" (Note: this is incorrect as there was no previous treatment, thus, it was an "INITIAL PARTIAL TREATMENT.").  Based on the Supervisor?s statement, the back side of the house still remains untreated. The supervisor stated ?that the original worker should have done his job right!? Then he said that his paperwork states the original worker used 25 gallons of chemicals when he started the project.  Plaintiff's spouse reminded the supervisor that he (the original employee in 2010) stated he could not use liquids or granules due to the water being less than 50 feet from the house. He, the supervisor, said ?oh yes, you are right, if he would have, it would have broken the federal laws".  But yet, he insisted that Plaintiff's home was protected against termites.  Plaintiff's wife asked about the damage being repaired, reporting the supervisor's response was ?I don?t know when the floor was fixed or if it was fixed.? Plaintiff's wife told him, I am not stupid, we would NEVER put $1,000?s of dollars worth of porcelain or granite flooring down on termite eaten floors and all termite damaged wood was removed before the floor was put in place. The Supervisor again tried to be defensive; PLAINTIFF spouse said ?It is too cold out here? and went inside. reporting she was tired of his being defensive and trying to turn everything around to being Plaintiff problem. (See EXHIBIT "E", PARAGRAPH  5, AFFIDAVIT, PARAGRAPH D BY KATHY NOE and EXHIBIT "H", J&J TREATMENT UNDER THE HOME PARTIAL TREATMENT)  

I 

Plaintiff inspected under the house on February 7, 2015 as a follow up inspection after the treatment of January 14, 2015 . Plaintiff discovered that contrary to J&J's claim on January 14, 2015 of "knocking down all the mud tubes", there were still a massive infestation along the length of NUMBER 16, FLOOR Joist beam in the center of the home and another mud tube found on another FLOOR joist. These are "intact mud tubes.? Plaintiff took pictures of the intact mud tubs that were not knocked down, these pictures are representative of the mud tubes that were present on the header joists, FLOOR joists, AND GIRDERS in front of the house before they were knocked down on January 14, 2015  (See EXHIBIT "J" PICTURES TAKEN FEBRUARY 7, 2015 AFTER J&J TREATMENT ON JANUARY 14, 2015 SHOWING DAMAGE AND MUD TUBES AND DESCRIBES DAMAGE AND THE DAMAGE OCCURRED)  

  J 

In 2009, Plaintiff was preparing to install granite and porcelain flooring, before doing this, Plaintiff conducted an inspection under the house to find termite damage along the Header Joints in the front and sides of the front of the house and damage to a number of Floor Joist beams that connected to the Header Joist had termite damage to 1 to 3 feet from the Header Joist.  There was no termite activity, tubes, etching or damage ELSEWHERE UNDER HOUSE. Plaintiff pulled up the floor in the front 4 rooms, removed the Header JoiSts and cutting away the damaged portion of THE FLOOR Joist where they connected to the Header Joists and plywood sub flooring and replaced all damaged area with new wood. ALL DAMAGE/ACTIVITY WAS EXCLUSIVE TO THE FRONT AND FRONT SIDES OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.  The walls in the front rooms WERE REPAIRED, the damaged WALLS sole plate, common studs, and cripple studs WERE REPAIRED TO REMOVE the termite damaged areas and walls reinstalled.  February 2010 (MID MONTH), all the termite damaged wood had been removed and replaced.  Any wood that was not solid was removed (the wood was considered solid when hit with a hammer and sounded solid, when it was questionable, it was cut out. Floor Joists beams that connected the Header Joist where the Header Joist had damage at the joint, but the Floor Joist did not show damage, the very end was cut off and inspected, if it appeared there was no damage, it was joined to a EXTENSION HEADER JOIST that was joined to the new Header Joists and nailed to the Header Joist.  After all the work, all the mud tubes ON THE BRICK WALLS AND PILLARS were broken and j&J Termite Company was hired to treat the home. There was no Termite damage elsewhere under THE FRONT ROOMS OR in the rear of the home.  BROKEN TERMITE TUBES AND ETCHINGS WERE EXCLUSIVE TO THE VERY FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE BRICK WALL AND PILINGS.   (See EXHIBIT "K.1" thru "K.4", AFFIDAVITS BY MR. GOODFRIEND; DR. KUMAR; MR. WATERS; AND MR. MORENO) 

K 

Plaintiff?s spouse avers that she was present for all annual inspections and does not recall an inspector suiting up and going under the house with the exception of the year 2011. Plaintiff was present for two of the annual inspections (2013 & 2014) and states the inspector did not inspect under the house. All J&J previous annual inspection reports (2011 & 2013) before discovery of termite/damages on December 29, 2015 REPORT the inspectors observed "broken tunnels or shelter tunnels throughout under the house." This is a false finding as described in paragraph B ABOVE; only the extreme front of the house had termite damage and broken tubes.  all annual inspection reports show finding only of "broken mud tubes/structures/ tunnels".  if there were only broken tubes/shelter tunnels found during the annual inspections, the question becomes: ?where and when were all these ?intact mud tunnels/tubes" that were DISCOVERED built?? Plaintiff asserts the damage discovered ON DECEMBER 29, 2014 is a direct result of J&J's failure to provide the contractual services and inspections under the home, otherwise, no termite activity or intact mud tubes could be present.   (See EXHIBIT "'L" SUMMARY OF REPORTS AND EXHIBIT "L.1" thru "L.3"  J&J ANNUAL INSPECTION RENEWAL REPORTS)    

L

The Annual Inspection reports observations citing Construction Problems/Wood To Ground ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING for the porch and shed AND NOT THE HOME, which are not part of the house. The defect noted by the Annual Inspection report for the porch was corrected in 2013 and is not cited in the J&J?S 2014 ANNUAL INSPECTION  report (See EXHIBIT "'L" SUMMARY OF REPORTS AND EXHIBIT "L.1" thru "L.3"  J&J ANNUAL INSPECTION RENEWAL REPORTS)  and (See EXHIBIT "M" PICTURES; BACK PORCH AND SHED-CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS/WOOD TO GROUND-PICTURES)

M 

A claim letter was sent to J&J Extermination Company on February 6, 2015, USPS tracking DOCUMENTS delivERY WAS MADE ON February 7, 2015, AS OF THIS FILING, NO RESPONSE FROM J&J HAS BEEN RECEIVED.   (See EXHIBIT "0". CLAIM LETTER TO J&J FOR DAMAGE/BREACH OF CONTRACT DATED  FEBRUARY 6, 2015 AND USPS TRACKING REPORT

LIST OF EXHIBITS

     A.(1) FLOOR FRAMING & WALL TERMINOLOGY

     a.(2) diagram floor FRAMING showing areas of damage

     B. CONTRACT WITH J&J EXTERMINATION COMPANY DATED MARCH 13, 2010

     C. J&J INSPECTION GRAPH MARCH 12, 2010

     D. "omitted"

     E.  AFFIDAVIT  BY KATHY NOE

     F. SENTRICON SYSTEM DESTROYS TERMITE COLONIES

     G.  PICTURES UNDER CHILDREN'S BEDROOM

     H.  INSPECTION REPORT BY TERMINIX DATE OF INSPECTION FEBRUARY 13, 3015 OF THE

                INSPECTION MADE ON JANUARY 8, 2015)

     I. J&J TREATMENT UNDER THE HOUSE JAN 14, 2015 (PARTIAL TREATMENT)

     J. PICTURES TAKEN FEBRUARY 7, 2015 AFTER J&J TREATMENT ON JANUARY 14,2015 SHOWING 

               DAMAGE AND INTACT MUD TUBES

     K. AFFIDAVITS

          1. AFFIDAVIT BY RANDY GOODFRIEND

          2. AFFIDAVIT BY DR. SURESH KUMAR, MD

          3. AFFIDAVIT BY STEPHEN WATERS

          4. AFFIDAVIT BY JOHN MORENO

     L. J&J ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORTS

     M. PICTURES: BACK PORCH AND SHED-CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS/WOOD TO 

               GROUND-PICTURES

     N. SENTRICON CHECKUP REPORTS

     O. CLAIM LETTER TO J&J FOR DAMAGE/BREACH OF CONTRACT (FOR ARBITRATION) DATED 

                FEBRUARY 6, 2015 AND USPS TRACKING REPORT    

     P. THREE PHOTO'S OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE SHOWING NO TERMITE ACTIVITY NOW OR EVER.

     Q  CLAIM LETTER TO J&J, 2nd request for DAMAGES/BREACH OF CONTRACT.

EXHIBITS

(NOTE: IMAGES ARE IN THUMBNAIL, CLICK ON THE IMAGE, IT WILL ENLARGE, TO GET BACK TO THE NORMAL PAGE AFTER VIEWING THE IMAGE, USE THE BACK ARROW AT THE TOP, LEFT OF YOUR  PAGE)

EXHIBIT "J" PIC #1   1/18/2015 Close up of a Termite Mud Tube, 4 days after it was treated. After the service personnel completed treatment on 1/14/2015 , they reported that they knocked down all the mud tubes. However, they missed this one.	EXHIBIT "J"  PIC #2   1/18/2015 Although the J&J service persons reported they knocked down all the mud tubes; they completely missed this one foot joist in the center of the house.
EXHIBIT "J" PIC #3    1/18/2015   Close up of Picture #2 termites mud tunnels on this one 20' Floor Joist beam.	EXHIBIT "J"  PIC #4    1/18/2015 New Wood Damaged by Termites
EXHIBIT ?J? PIC #5   1/18/2015 Close examination, shows a mud tube, in the process of being degraded after treatment; this was an intact tube before treatment. (See Exhibit J, Pic?s 15 & 16. An intact mud tube before treatment and 4 days after treatment, showing the degrading. This mud tube and is consistent with the degrading process	EXHIBIT ?J? PIC #6   1/18/2015 Close up of Pic #J-6? shows a mud tube, in the process of being degraded after treatment; this was an intact tube before treatment. (See Exhibit J, Pic?s 15 & 16. An intact mud tube before treatment and 4 days after treatment, showing the degrading of this mud tube and is consistent with the degrading process.
EXHIBIT "J"  PIC #7   1/18/2015 Close up Picture #2 showing details  of termite mud tunnels on the 20' Floor  Joist beam.	EXHIBIT "J" PIC #8 (Taken 2/7/2015 ) Before treatment on 1/14/2015, this Floor Joist beam looked like the those with intact termite mud tubes, there were more that were like the above, after treatment, the J&J service members said they knocked down "all" the mud tubs under the house
EXHIBIT "J" PIC #9  1/18/15   Termite Another Floor Joist beam, Termite Damaged in the middle of the house directly above the crawl space after J&J knocked down the Termite Tunnels after treatment on 1/14/2015 .	EXHIBIT "J" PIC #10   1/18/2015  This is the repair that was done, when there was a question regarding the wood, the end was cut off  Floor Joist beam, inspected, if found solid, a reinforcement was added to the Header Joist against the wall foundation and a Joist brace was added to the Joist beam for strength. If damage was found, the damage was cut out and reinforcement added.
EXHIBIT "J" PIC #11   1/18/2015 The ends of some of the 20' Joist beams were cut to inspect for termites before nailing a new brace. This view shows the addition of a support Header Joist against the Header Joist against the foundation wall. Note Mud tube was intact before treatment on side of bricks.	EXHIBIT "J" PIC #12    1/18/2015 This picture shows the new brace that was termite damaged.  The ends of the 20' Joist beam were cut to inspect the wood, the termite damage was cut out and a brace added  to extend the 20' joist beam to the Header Joist.
EXHIBIT "J" PIC #13    1/18/2015 This is an enlargement of the photo above  (Picture 12) to show the addition of a extension Joist to the 20' joist beam replacing the damage that was cut out, connecting the 20' Joist beam to the Header Joist to the Foundation wall. This picture also shows the addition brace to the Header Joist to add width to the Header Joist to extend it so it would join the 20' Joist that had the end cut off for inspection.	MASTER BEDROOM WALL DAMAGE     #14     2/15/2015                    #15    2/15/2015

EXHIBIT ?J?, PIC # 16     12/29/2014              Intact mud tube on 12/29/1014. This is one that termite tube that had activity observed by both Plaintiff and Terminix inspector

EXHIBIT ?J?, PIC #17    1/18/2015 Mud tube in Picture J#16 to the left being degraded 4 days after treatment. After 20 days, it was completely disintegrated.

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-6

M-7

EXHIBIT  "N"   SENTRICON CHECKUP APRIL AND AUGUST 2010

EXHIBIT "P" REAR/BACK UNDER HOUSE PICTURES SHOWING NO TERMITE ACTIVITY NOW OR EVER HAD TERMITE ACTIVITY P-1 P-2 P-3