Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that FDUTPA allows a consumer to recover damages for the diminished value of goods or services received but not consequential damages for property related to the 19 consumer’s use of such goods or services
• finding that the plaintiffs’ claim for costs of repairing termite damage was impermissible under FDUTPA because such costs constituted “special or consequential damages”
• holding that [FJDUTPA embraces a claim for legal malpractice
• determining that the FDUTPA \is intended to protect a consumer from unfair or deceptive acts or practices which diminish the value or worth of the goods or services purchased by the consumer\
• reversing a directed verdict on a FDUTPA claim based on a single transaction in which a termite inspector allegedly phoned in a single false inspection report
• denying, as special or consequential damages, repair costs for termite damage to house purchased in reliance on false termite inspection certificate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).