Elizabeth Stewart VS Dugas Pest Control of Baton Rouge, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0739 ELIZABETH STEWART VS DUGAS PEST CONTROL OF BATON ROUGE INC JUDGMENT RENDERED r 1AH 9 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER DIVISION J PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA 424 505 HONORABLE CURTIS A CALLOWAY JUDGE JOSEPH P BRANTLEY IV COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT BATON ROUGE ELIZABETH STEWART LA KEVIN P LANDRENEAU COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE BATON ROUGE DUGAS PEST CONTROL LA OF BATON ROUGE INe BEFORE t CARTER C J WHIPPLE AND MCDONALD JJ MCDONALD J This is appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court an November of 1999 Elizabeth Stewart entered into a home at 846 Mouton Street condition disclosure the margin had in Baton found termite exit holes in a Stewart but did not issue written Pest Dugas prepared a Wood The WDIR termites on dining room Insect Destroying that the house 31 December 10 were wall and Rouge treated did on November 15 by Dugas contract to inspection and an until the a 1999 Pest Control for May 31 2000 indicated contract of the home and indicated that treated with From December 1999 to out to Ms pointed them Inc RepOli WDIR was areas 1999 Ms Stewart for thorough inspection and a with records available upon request An attachment of live infestation Stewart inspection of the house an 1996 and remained under the location of termites in two Ms is as The inspection report Control of Baton states May a perform inspector did s property 98 treated and corrected note thereafter hired Mr B Services Inc to Mr B Services Inc purchase The 420 000 00 agreement provided that the house would be sold termites to agreement checked for termite infestation and in statement was hand written a for Rouge an In two areas mixture of Premise 05 On purchased the house April 2002 Dugas Pest Control inspected the propeliy every six months and issued annual termite control warranties for 2000 and 2001 that indicated termites an The no original agreement with Dugas active infestation of wood occurred in any treat portion the infested agreement present visible signs of active also of the destroying insects covered building then Dugas portions within 30 days provided Pest Control that due 2 to at no various or previous provided that if by the agreement Pest Control additional agreed charge conditions present to The in construction possibilities the time the agreement damage which of infestation and the company damage at existing the company to the structure was and the mayor may not be visible to not liable for any the contents covered or made was past present by the agreement or future if caused by the wood destroYing insects In When April of 2002 Ms a runner was wood underneath came house and some on soft Ms Stewart called April 16 damage Pest Control returned on 2002 Ms remedial the home was Stewart thereafter filed suit repairs repairs and additional Dugas performed in on the left side of the termites Aftelward again compensation for of the agreement Ms in 1996 460 000 00 Pest Control asking 75 000 00 for damage diminution of the value of petition asserting that its work acceptable standards agreement with Ms Stewart averring that it a and discovered that multiple times against Dugas due to termite accordance with Dugas areas crack in the foundation in Pest Control Pest Control answered the under the WDIR and the terms Dugas hallway the Pest Control which Ms Stewart sold the house in 2003 for 24 771 00 for floor for a and treated the house previously been treated for 1998 and 1999 Dugas found telTIlites Apri119 2002 found Stewart reviewed the records from 1997 refinish the wood floors the hallway floor and treated those to closet with active termites the house had to removed from the floor in the downstairs was to the house Stewart decided was entitled that any was to liability limited a to the reduction in damages for the fault of any third pmiies and further asseliing that because more than three years had passed between any Pest Control and the filing of the lawsuit the 3 alleged negligence of Dugas case was prescribed After prove her a bench trial the trial court ruled in favor of case found that Ms Stewart failed Dugas Pest Stewart and dismissed the suit Ms StewaIi Although the trial court did not Control and appeals issue written without to a water vapor barrier between the reasons for water problems with leaking from upstairs above the which could have been the actual discovered over After in the trial Dugas water a two years after the s ruling that Control against Ms Further where the floor in fact of the floor was Therefore the including soft all of damage that was purchase of the house we find no error of law Ms Stewart failed to prove her accordance with Uniform Rules assessed area at slab and the wood floors intrusion into the house thorough review of the record court Pest cause judgment incorrectly installed prevent moisture from the slab permeating the wood evidence revealed are concrete Ms judgment that trial the evidence revealed that the wood floors had been against to we affirm the trial Courts of Stewart AFFIRMED 4 Appeal court case or fact against judgment Rule 2 16 1B in Costs
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
