JAMES W. HINES AND CYNTHIA HINES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARJORIE LEBAR, ARAB TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL OF FLORIDA, INC., AND AMICK & SONS, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Homebuyers sued a pest control inspector, pest control company, and home seller for damages from termite infestation discovered three months after purchase. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper. The defendants failed to carry their burden of establishing the absence of genuine issues of material fact, as neither pest control company asserted its work was properly completed and the seller had not denied under oath awareness of termites at the time of sale.
[1] A seller's obligation to provide a termite inspection report showing the premises to be free of visible evidence of active infestation does not preclude a claim for conce…
[2] Summary judgment is improper when a defendant has not presented evidence demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence in pest control…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It may be that none of the appellees are responsible for the appellants' damages, but at this point they have not carried their burden of showing the absence of genuine issues of material fact.”
States the standard for summary judgment and finding that defendants failed to meet their burden
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants required the home seller to provide a current termite inspection report showing the premises free of active termite infestation as a condit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellants were concerned over termites. As a condition of the purchase of their home, they required the seller to furnish them with a “current termite inspection report from a licensed exterminating company showing the premises to be free of visible evidence of active infestation of subterranean or drywood termites.” At closing, they obtained from the seller an assignment of a contract for subterranean termite control. Notwithstanding, about three months after the purchase, their parquet floors were infested with subterranean termites. Appellants sued the pest control inspector (Amick) for negligently certifying the house to be free of active infestation, the pest control company under contract (Arab) for negligent treatment, and the seller (LeBar) for concealment of the existence of the termites. The court granted summary judgment to all defendant/appel-lees.
We reverse.
The only evidence in this record is the deposition of a state entomologist and two affidavits by pest control operators. The entomologist confirmed the existence of the infestation in the parquet floors, but he could not say whether the termites would have been apparent at the time the house was sold or whether any of appellants’ damage was attributable to negligent treatment.
However, the pest control operators opined that the home had been infested by termites for at least eighteen months before appellants bought it and that the previous termite treatment was improper. Except in their unsworn pleadings, neither of the appellee pest control companies has even asserted that its work was properly accomplished, and Mrs. LeBar has not yet denied under oath that she was unaware of termites when she sold her house. It may be that none of the appellees are responsible for the appellants’ damages, but at this point they have not carried their burden of showing the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Wills v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Heffernan v. Consolidated Aluminum, Inc., 387 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We reverse the summary judgment with respect to all appellees and remand the case for further proceedings.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 387 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)