Orkin To Pay $2.25 Million
A 2003 arbitration panel's punitive damages award was reinstated, finding that Orkin Exterminating Inc. failed to deliver on its lifetime contract for termite protection.
March 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
A three-judge panel for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a 2003 arbitration panel's punitive damages award to a Florida homeowner, finding that pest-control company Orkin Exterminating Inc. failed to deliver on its lifetime contract for termite protection.
Florida homeowner Collier Black's Ponte Vedra home suffered repetitive termite infestations while Black was under a contract with Orkin. In 2003, Black brought suit against Orkin for neglect of contract and accused the company of not having proper permits. The panel made explicit factual findings supporting a claim for gross negligence and fraud against Orkin and awarded Black $4.2 million, including $2.25 million in punitive damages, $750,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in attorneys' fees.
Orkin appealed to a U.S. District Court, which vacated the arbitration panel's award of punitive damages, finding the award “evinced a manifest disregard of the law.”
However, in the Feb. 23 ruling the 11th Circuit found that “the arbitration panel at most merely misinterpreted or misapplied the law and not that it deliberately disregarded it.”
In addition to reinstating the punitives, the court also remanded the case to the district court to grant Black interest from the date of the interim award.
As a result of Black's suit, the Florida attorney general's office has opened a racketeering investigation against Orkin.
A three-judge panel for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a 2003 arbitration panel's punitive damages award to a Florida homeowner, finding that pest-control company Orkin Exterminating Inc. failed to deliver on its lifetime contract for termite protection.
Florida homeowner Collier Black's Ponte Vedra home suffered repetitive termite infestations while Black was under a contract with Orkin. In 2003, Black brought suit against Orkin for neglect of contract and accused the company of not having proper permits. The panel made explicit factual findings supporting a claim for gross negligence and fraud against Orkin and awarded Black $4.2 million, including $2.25 million in punitive damages, $750,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in attorneys' fees.
Orkin appealed to a U.S. District Court, which vacated the arbitration panel's award of punitive damages, finding the award “evinced a manifest disregard of the law.”
However, in the Feb. 23 ruling the 11th Circuit found that “the arbitration panel at most merely misinterpreted or misapplied the law and not that it deliberately disregarded it.”
In addition to reinstating the punitives, the court also remanded the case to the district court to grant Black interest from the date of the interim award.
As a result of Black's suit, the Florida attorney general's office has opened a racketeering investigation against Orkin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![CLOs Face Mounting Pressure as Risks Mushroom and Job Duties Expand CLOs Face Mounting Pressure as Risks Mushroom and Job Duties Expand](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/390/2023/10/Businessman-juggling-business-icons-767x633.jpg)
![Starbucks Sues Ex-Executive to Recover $1M Signing Bonus Starbucks Sues Ex-Executive to Recover $1M Signing Bonus](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/03/Starbucks-Sign-767x633.jpg)
!['Not Last Week’s SEC': Regulatory Agency Creates Crypto Task Force 'Not Last Week’s SEC': Regulatory Agency Creates Crypto Task Force](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/cd/ff/f95f99784a48b290efe529fd1d42/securities-and-exchange-commission-building-sec-2014-08-357358-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Munger, Gibson Dunn Billed $63 Million to Snap in 2024
- 2January Petitions Press High Court on Guns, Birth Certificate Sex Classifications
- 3'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 4Judge Extends Tom Girardi's Time in Prison Medical Facility to Feb. 20
- 5Supreme Court Denies Trump's Request to Pause Pending Environmental Cases
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250