so apparently Sirenusa knew what terminex was using

loria · Post by **loria** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:43 am

And terminex advertised it as very effective ...
from the VI daily news via news of st john https://www.facebook.com/NewsofStJohn/?fref=nf

(not to say that management at Sirens would know what methyl bromide was -- but the fat that Terminex is advertising it as an appropriate solution... well... that is more than startling)

mizarumonkey · Post by **mizarumonkey** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:10 am

That's definitely huge news, and definitely bad for both Terminex and Sirenusa, as the defense of, "we had no clue what the rogue Terminex employee was doing" is getting further and further out of reach for both sides.

GidgetPicklebrain · Post by **GidgetPicklebrain** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:09 am

I do not see how Sirenusa can be held at all responsible for Termix's illegal behavior. They hired a nationally know, supposedly reputable comapny to do pest control for them. It would be reasonable to assume the company used legal methods and materials.

mizarumonkey · Post by **mizarumonkey** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:29 am

Documents like these found by the Daily News may prove otherwise... http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/n ... 768c9.html

If it disappears, this highlighted statement may be of importance, "(** Important: During fumigation, the entire structure will have to be vacant for a period of
four (4) to five (5) days.) Upon approval of work, TERMINIX will provide detailed checklists and instructions to ensure safety." Terminix was in charge of the spraying, yes - but Sirenusa's management was in charge of the rental calendars and determining who would be exposed at what time, right?

jmq · Post by **jmq** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:53 pm

Wow. Considering the residual effects and the real pain & suffering that poor family has and will endure, their lawyers have to go hard after the deep pockets that Terminex has on their primary and umbrella liability limits.

That’s an incredibly lame warning and instruction for something that the EPA banned the indoor use of in 1984 due to its acute toxicity, and that Terminex was made to pay $10 million in criminal fines for:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/terminix ... idences-us

Pure negligence, probably due to some stupid corporate greed like Methyl Bromide is cheaper to use than the approved fumigant.

Sirenusa will likely be dragged in with them or get subrogated against to share some portion of the settlement costs. This assumes of course that Sirenusa has adequate primary and umbrella coverage. If not, ownership there may literally pay the price.

Teresa_Rae · Post by **Teresa_Rae** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:06 pm

GidgetPicklebrain wrote:I do not see how Sirenusa can be held at all responsible for Termix's illegal behavior. They hired a nationally know, supposedly reputable comapny to do pest control for them. It would be reasonable to assume the company used legal methods and materials.

My neighbor works in management for Terminix and told me that the people who do pest control on STJ are subcontractors and that Terminix has very little control over what any of their subcontractors do. I have to imagine that this incident has changed that lack of control in a significant way. He said that he has no idea how anyone on STJ got a hold of methyl bromide because even if he wanted do, he could not get his hands on any. It's apparently very tightly controlled and requires a special use license.

chicagoans · Post by **chicagoans** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:42 pm

Looking at the page posted by mizarumonkey, it's very clear what is being used; it's a short memo and the reference to Methyl Bromide is not at all hidden (not in a footnote or appendix, etc.) The one page memo has a spot for signatures from both SirenUsa and Terminix, so there is really no excuse for either side not knowing what was being used and what the vacancy requirement was. If Terminix let a subcontractor sign on their behalf, that's still their fault.

usvi-on-line