In 2023, Turner entered an agreement with Terminix through its Dothan, Alabama, location to conduct an inspection on a home Turner wished to purchase in Ozark, Alabama. Turner contracted with Terminix to "conduct a visual inspection of the residence for signs of infestation and/or damage by termites (or other wood-destroying organisms)." Rentokil N. Am., Inc. v. Turner, No. SC-2025-0042, 2025 WL 1718325, at *1 (Ala. June 20, 2025). After this inspection, Terminix found visible termite damage. Terminix was then contracted by the Turners to fix the issues and install a termite prevention system. This agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision that would prevent the Turners from suing Terminix and would require all legal disputes to be resolved through arbitration. While common, these agreements heavily favor large corporations such as Terminix compared to individuals attempting to sue the company.

"In September 2024, the Turners sued Terminix alleging… Terminix['s]… report regarding … [the] termite damage in the residence were "false" and asserting the following claims: breach of contract, "fraud-misrepresentation," fraudulent suppression, and negligence." Id. In response to this suit, Terminix claimed that the Turners' claims were subject to arbitration and could not be brought in open court subject to the parties' arbitration agreement. The trial court in this case denied Terminix's claim that arbitration was proper. In response to the denial of Terminix's motion to enforce the arbitration agreement, Terminix appealed. Turner, in response to Terminix's appeal, argued that the arbitration agreement did not cover the specific issue for which the Turners brought suit, thus the agreement was not binding on this lawsuit.

In response to Terminix's appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court held on June 20, 2025, "the trial court erred when it denied Terminix's motion seeking to compel arbitration." Id. at 4. "The arbitration provision [at issue] provides that 'any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with the [master service] agreement'" Id. at 3. The agreement stated that "any claim, dispute or controversy… arising out of or relating to this… shall be resolved by one arbitrator through binding arbitration." Id. at 1. The court held that the "agreement is sufficiently broad to encompass, at least on its face, the Turners' claims against Terminix; even to the extent that those claims allegedly relate to an earlier transaction." Id. at 4. Accordingly, this language in the agreement is considered by the court to be sufficiently broad to cover any claim relating to the relationship between Terminix and Turner. Under this agreement, any claim brought against Terminix by Turner would be required to be arbitrated in accordance with the terms of the parties' agreement.

The Alabama Supreme Court made the correct, though harsh, decision in this case. While enforcement of this arbitration agreement almost certainly will lead to a less favorable result for Turner than a trial would have, the Turners agreed to arbitration. Companies cannot provide services in the modern legal environment unless what they have contracted to is properly enforced by the courts. Uncertainty is antithetical to business, and uncertain environments destroy business operations and economic stability.

This decision reinforces the legal principle that broadly worded arbitration clauses will be enforced when they encompass the disputes at hand. The Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation demonstrates that arbitration provisions using expansive language such as "arising out of or relating to" will typically be upheld, even when claims stem from multiple transactions between the parties. This broad interpretation aligns with federal policy favoring arbitration and provides businesses with the contractual certainty necessary for effective operations.

For consumers and businesses alike, this case underscores the critical importance of carefully reading and understanding arbitration clauses before entering into service agreements. The Turners' situation illustrates how broadly worded arbitration provisions can encompass claims that consumers might not anticipate would be subject to arbitration. While this outcome may disadvantage individual consumers, the predictable enforcement of contract terms provides the legal certainty that businesses require to operate effectively in today's complex commercial environment.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.