Case Summary

5035 A termite inspection company owes no duty to a guest of the property owner who falls from a balcony that had suffered dry rot that had not been identified in the inspection report; the company only owes a duty to the property owner with whom the company is in privity in part because the purpose of the report was to advise the property owner about value and was not intended to be a safety report; additionally no duty existed under the Rowland multi-factor test primarily because the owner failed to repair any of the dry rot problems that were identified in the report.

FORMET v LLOYD TERMITE CONTROL CO. (No Privity No Duty) 185 CA4 595 [See Rowland v Christian, 69 C2 108; Greenberg v Hastie, 202 CA2 159; Bily v Arthur Young & Co, 3 C4 379, T/AT 10/1992; FSR Brokerage Inc v Superior Court, 35 CA4 69, T/AT 7/1995; Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co Inc v Superior Court, 117 CA4 158, T/AT 5/2004]