Nancy Power purchased a house that was infested with termites. She sued the sellers, their real estate agent, the company that provided the termite infestation report, and two representatives of the company, alleging that all defendants had defrauded her and that the exterminating company and its representatives were negligent in inspecting and treating the house. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants except with respect to the negligence and fraud claims against the exterminating company and its two representatives.1 In Case Number A99A2182, Power appeals the order of the trial court. In Case Number A99A2183, the exterminating company and its representatives appeal. As the two cases involve the same operative facts, we have consolidated them on appeal. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
On a motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in favor of the non-movant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.2 So viewed, the record demonstrates that, in November 1994, Patsy Bryan, her husband Thomas, and her father, Glenn Newton, purchased a house owned by Jan Harper for $75,000.00. At the time of the purchase, Patsy Bryan knew there was termite damage in one of the back bedrooms. But, according to a Georgia Exterminator’s wood infestation report dated November 19, 1994, there was no active infestation.
