Opinion ID: 1740339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The reprehensibility of the Orkin defendants' conduct.

Text: Although this factor is also discussed in our review of the BMW guideposts, in a Hammond/Green Oil review, we assess the reprehensibility of a defendant's conduct by considering `[t]he duration of this conduct, the degree of the defendant's awareness of any hazard which his conduct has caused or is likely to cause, and any concealment or cover-up of that hazard, and the existence and frequency of similar past conduct.' Green Oil, 539 So.2d at 223 (quoting Lavoie, 505 So.2d at 1062). We note that this factor would permit a significant punitive-damages award for Mrs. Jeter's estate. The evidence in the record suggests that as early as 1978 Orkin breached its duty to adequately inspect Mrs. Jeter's home, and that in 1984 Orkin saw evidence of termite damage to Mrs. Jeter's home but did nothing to repair that damage until 1988. The Maxwell memorandum, as well as trial testimony from expert witnesses, indicated that the repair work performed by Orkin in 1988 was inadequate. Orkin's reprehensible conduct in regard to Mrs. Jeter's claim spanned almost 10 years. The evidence is overwhelming that Orkin actively engaged in a plan to deceive Mrs. Jeter about the condition of her home. It is clear that the scheme to deceive Mrs. Jeter spanned from lower level termite inspectors to a branch manager, a district manager, and a regional manager. In addition, there is evidence that Orkin engaged in a pattern of misconduct by failing to inform homeowners of termite damage for which Orkin would be liable to repair. The evidence of Orkin's reprehensible conduct overwhelmingly weighs in favor of a finding that substantial punitive damages are appropriate.