Informational only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Florida's wood-destroying organism inspection framework is among the most developed in the nation, and for good reason — the state's climate makes virtually every structure a candidate for termite, wood-decaying fungus, or wood-boring beetle infestation. When a WDO inspection report is negligently prepared, intentionally falsified, or materially incomplete, the resulting claims implicate the inspecting company, the real estate professionals who relied on it, and in some cases the seller who orchestrated the inspection. This post addresses the regulatory structure governing WDO inspections in Florida real estate transactions and the litigation theories that arise when the system fails.
The Regulatory Framework: Fla. Stat. § 482.226 and Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-14.142
The core statutory provision is Fla. Stat. § 482.226 (2025), which governs WDO inspections in connection with real estate transactions. Its key provisions are:
Mandatory use of the prescribed form. When a licensee performs a WDO inspection for a real estate transaction and either a fee is charged or a written report is requested, the inspection findings must be reported on the form prescribed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). Fla. Stat. § 482.226(1). No disclaimers or additional language may be added to the prescribed form. Fla. Admin. Code r. 5E-14.142.
Required content. The WDO report must include:
- The identity of the inspecting licensee and their identification card number.
- The address and description of the inspected structure.
- Any live wood-destroying organisms observed, identified by common name and location.
- Evidence of wood-destroying organisms (dead insects, insect parts, frass, shelter tubes, exit holes, or other evidence), identified by location.
- Any visible damage caused by wood-destroying organisms.
- Any visible evidence of previous treatments for, or infestations of, wood-destroying organisms.
- Obstructions and inaccessible areas that limited the inspection.
- A statement that a notice of inspection has been posted at the property.
Fla. Stat. § 482.226(2); Fla. Admin. Code r. 5E-14.142.
The report is not a guarantee — unless it says it is. This statutory disclaimer is important and often misunderstood: an inspection report does not constitute a guarantee of the absence of wood-destroying organisms or damage unless the report specifically states the extent of any such guarantee. Fla. Stat. § 482.226(2)(c). A buyer who assumes that a clean WDO report means the structure is termite-free has made an assumption not supported by the law — which is precisely why the adequacy of the inspection itself matters so much in litigation.
Inspector qualifications. Only licensees holding a pest control identification card qualifying them to perform WDO inspections may issue the report. The requirement that the inspector hold a state identification card at all times while performing inspections is a technical element of licensure, and failure to maintain it can affect whether a given inspection was performed by a person authorized to issue the mandatory form.
Form FDACS-13645: The "Old 1145 Report"
The current mandatory WDO inspection form is Form FDACS-13645, most recently revised in 2021. The form is sometimes still referred to colloquially in the real estate industry as the "1145 report" — a reference to the older form number that preceded the current FDACS designation. Practitioners encountering older transaction files should be aware that both designations refer to the same document type; the revision has modified format but not the fundamental inspection-and-reporting obligations.
The form is divided into three sections:
- Section 1 identifies the property, the licensee, and the requesting party.
- Section 2 is the inspection findings section — the most legally significant portion, capturing live organisms, evidence of organisms (including frass, shelter tubes, and exit holes), visible damage, and previous treatment evidence.
- Section 3 documents obstructions and inaccessible areas.
Section 2 is where most litigation originates. A Section 2 finding of "no live organisms, no evidence of infestation, no damage" on a property with a concealed Formosan colony or extensive subterranean damage creates a direct conflict between the document and the physical reality — and raises immediate questions about whether the discrepancy reflects inspection negligence or intentional misrepresentation.
Buyer, Seller, and Lender Reliance
Buyer reliance. The WDO report is ordered in connection with a real estate transaction and is delivered to the buyer, the buyer's lender, and — depending on the circumstances — the closing agent and title company. The buyer relies on the report in deciding whether to proceed with the purchase, negotiate a price reduction, require treatment as a closing condition, or cancel the contract. A negligently prepared report that fails to identify active infestation or visible damage proximately causes the buyer's damages when the infestation is discovered post-closing.
Seller/listing agent coordination concerns. In practice, the seller frequently selects and pays for the WDO inspection — a structural incentive that creates the risk of a biased or inadequate inspection. Where the same pest control company has a pre-existing service relationship with the seller, the independence of the inspector is legitimately questioned. Discovery should probe any prior service history, repeated use of the same inspector, and any communications between the seller's agent and the pest control company before or after the inspection.
Lender reliance. Mortgage lenders — particularly those underwriting FHA and conventional loans — routinely require a WDO inspection as a loan condition. A negligent inspection that clears a property with undisclosed active infestation can expose the inspecting company to claims by lenders who suffer loss on the mortgage, though these claims are less frequently litigated than direct buyer claims.
The VA Loan Federal Overlay
Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan requirements impose a federal layer atop Florida's state WDO framework. VA regulations require a wood-destroying insect (WDI) inspection, conducted on Form NPMA-33 (the national Pest Management Association form), for all VA-guaranteed purchase loans unless a specific exemption applies. See 38 C.F.R. Part 36 (VA loan regulations); VA Lender's Handbook, Chapter 12 (property and appraisal requirements).
The NPMA-33 and the Florida FDACS-13645 forms serve related but distinct purposes. The NPMA-33 reports only wood-destroying insects and does not capture wood-decaying fungi — a covered organism under Florida's broader WDO definition. The state FDACS-13645 report covers all wood-destroying organisms under Fla. Stat. § 482.021(28) (defining "wood-destroying organism" to include termites, powder post beetles, old house borers, and wood-decaying fungi). A VA transaction may therefore require both forms, and the interaction between the federal WDI requirement and the state WDO mandate is a potential trap for inspectors who issue only one without the other.
For litigation purposes, the VA overlay matters in two respects. First, properties purchased with VA loans are more likely to have documented pre-closing inspections, creating a baseline record from which to measure subsequent damage. Second, the VA's underwriting requirements impose a higher standard of disclosure on the seller and the inspecting company: a transaction that proceeds to VA loan closing with a negligently prepared inspection creates exposure not just to the buyer but potentially to the lender whose government-backed guarantee is at stake.
Statutory Duties and Liability Theories
Several independent liability theories flow from WDO inspection failures:
Negligence per se. A licensee who fails to report required findings — live organisms, evidence of organisms, visible damage, or previous treatment evidence — has violated a specific regulatory duty. The violation of Fla. Stat. § 482.226(2) or Fla. Admin. Code r. 5E-14.142 constitutes negligence per se if the harm suffered (undisclosed termite damage) falls within the class of harms the statute was designed to prevent. Florida courts have applied negligence per se in the property inspection context.
Fraudulent misrepresentation. Where the inspector affirmatively marks "no evidence of infestation" on a form that a reasonable inspection would have revealed to be false — particularly where physical evidence (frass, mud tubes, exit holes, visible damage) is present and accessible — the misrepresentation is actionable in fraud. The measure of damages in fraud permits recovery of consequential losses including repair costs, diminished value, and in appropriate cases loss of use.
Negligent inspection. Even absent outright fraud, an inspector who fails to examine accessible areas, fails to probe visually suspicious surfaces, or fails to report "conducive conditions" that a competent inspector would recognize as indicators of high infestation risk has breached the standard of care. Fla. Admin. Code r. 5E-14.142 mandates inspection of all wood-destroying organisms and examination of accessible structural members; the departure from this standard is the breach.
Errors and omissions coverage. Fla. Stat. § 482.226(6) requires every licensee performing WDO inspections for real estate transactions to maintain E&O coverage of at least $500,000 in aggregate and $250,000 per occurrence, or to demonstrate net worth of at least $500,000. This financial responsibility requirement makes WDO inspection malpractice claims more practically recoverable than many other professional liability actions.
Practice Notes
Preserve the report and the property. The WDO report is the foundational document. Obtain it immediately, in all versions (the copy provided to the buyer at closing may differ from the retained company copy in ways that matter). Photograph the property before any treatment or repair.
Request the inspector's field notes and underlying data. The FDACS-13645 is a summary form; inspectors should maintain field notes, photographs, and measurement records from which the form was prepared. Production of these underlying records is essential in negligence and fraud cases.
Check inaccessible-area notations. Section 3 of the FDACS-13645 form documents obstructions and inaccessible areas. An inspector who marks large portions of the structure inaccessible — particularly crawl spaces, attic spaces, or areas adjacent to suspected damage — may have effectively disclaimed liability for the areas where the real infestation was concentrated. Challenge the reasonableness of the inaccessibility designation.
Notice requirement. Fla. Stat. § 482.226(4) requires the licensee to post a notice of inspection "immediately adjacent to the access to the attic or crawl area or other readily accessible area." The absence of this notice at the time of discovery may help establish that no compliant inspection was performed.
Closing
Florida's WDO inspection framework creates both a regulatory compliance floor and a clear negligence standard against which inspector performance can be measured. When the floor is not met — and the gap between what the form says and what the structure contains is obvious — the legal theories are straightforward. The harder cases involve marginal inspections of marginally accessible areas, and those cases turn almost entirely on expert testimony about what a competent inspector should have found, reported, and disclosed.
Talk to Yates Anderson
If you are litigating a matter in this area — or weighing whether to — the working analysis above only goes so far. Request a case evaluation and a Yates Anderson attorney will respond within one business day.
Informational only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.