Clark Pest Control

Clark Pest Control

California Superior Court Rules Tom Campbell "Possess Uniquely Specialized Knowledge" to Help Homeowners With Fraud Claims

Clark Pest Control objected when Tom Campbell sought to represent a Sacramento couple who bought their first home because the company said it had no termite problems. In truth, the home needed to be torn down because of termite damage and associated problems.

Clark Pest argued that homeowners did not need lawyers with special experience representing victims and supported this argument with the testimony of a California defense lawyer who said he had represented pest control companies in hundreds of cases and felt that homeowners did not need lawyers with similar backgrounds. A judge did not buy it.

After reviewing an extensive factual record including testimonials from lawyers who have opposed Campbell Law PC in pest control litigation the Judge ruled that Tom Campbell "possess uniquely specialized knowledge" in the area of pest control litigation. The Judge ruled that homeowners should be free to find and use lawyers who have specialized knowledge about fraudulent and other wrongful practices in the termite control industry.

The Court also relied upon testimony that there are not lawyers in California who are willing to represent victims on a contingent fee basis. Contingent fee contracts with lawyers mean clients never have to pay a fee unless the client recovers.

Clark also withdrew objections to allowing Campbell Law PC's Ray Bronner t appear as a special counsel to represent the family.

Clark Pest Control appears to be upset because Tom Campbell took testimony in another case and used photos of this client's home. A company executive testified the conditions at the home with were never disclosed should have been because they were "really horrible."