[Problems & Solutions] Answers to Your Tough Pest Questions

"DAMAGE": FRIEND OR FOE?

Q At a recent meeting on wood-destroying insects, there were several questions and discussion about the use of the term "damage" on WDI reports. What is your feeling on the use of this term in reference to WDI reports?

A This "damage" question has been around for many years. In some areas, the term has been removed from state reports and I hear if you are caught using it you can be summarily smacked in front of your employees (just kidding). But, there is definitely a stigma in some people’s minds about this term.

So let’s look at some of the reasoning here. First, many feel if you use "damage" in a report you are taking on liability you do not want (that the reference to damage means something has to be repaired and you are held responsible for determining that repair). Next, I recently heard an attorney state that "you don’t even want to mention ‘damage.’" But in listening to his explanation, he did not delineate what other term we could use.

Next, some PCOs feel we should never mention damage regardless of the reason because we are not damage experts.

Now let’s look at what the industry actually does. The reality is that we use the term "damage." We use it because that is precisely what termites and other WDIs do — they damage wood with their activity. After all, that is why customers pay us the big bucks to perform WDI inspections!

Where else would this term have come from? We used to give even more information, like some damage was (is) cosmetic, and other is structural. The last reference definitely gets people’s attention. But, over the years, "damage" has become synonymous with "structural damage," so much so that in some meetings I have attended it is difficult to determine exactly what people are discussing when they say "damage."

We have a couple of recourses. Leave "damage" on the form and explain (in a better way then there is now) that damage is evidence of termites eating wood (notice I did not say destroying wood). Also state that the evidence needs to be evaluated by a repair expert. This brings up an interesting situation since most real estate agents will turn to a repair company that will recommend that repairs are needed. This is OK because then it is not your problem.

Another option is to remove the term from all forms (including the NPMA-33 form) and define evidence as including "termmite activity in wood.” Then, I guess we’d also have to say there was previous activity in the wood, when live termites are not found.

This brings us to another term: “activity.” To me, determining “activity” means finding live insects. The rest is “evidence of activity.” Yes, I am splitting hairs but that’s what attorneys do.

This brings us back to the comments by the attorney, which I mentioned previously. While I guess I can appreciate his opinion, I sure want a guide from him as to what we should say. We cannot just walk away from the term “damage.” “Damage” is a part of our industry’s jargon. Should we change it? Yes. And we should start now!

This means changing a few things like those Xs and Ts with circles around them on diagrams and field worksheets. I believe every WDI inspection or treatment report I have looked at over the years had an X to denote “damage.” I’ve never been involved in a lawsuit where someone was suing the PCO because he explained where the damage and evidence was visible.

The author is president of George Rambo Consulting Services, Central, S.C. Fax questions to him at 864/654-2447 or via e-mail at grambo@giemedia.com.