On March 12, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held that a lease provision purporting to waive a tenant's rights or remedies required by law is unenforceable, and that the warranty of habitability under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act cannot be waived by agreement. The case arose from a flea infestation in an Alexandria rental where the lease assigned pest control to the tenant.
The practical effect: a lease clause making pests "the tenant's responsibility" no longer settles the question.
This is general information, not legal advice. A published decision states a principle; how it applies to your facts is a separate question. Consult a Virginia attorney or your local legal aid office about your situation.
What happened
A tenant rented a single-family home in Alexandria. She observed fleas and notified the landlord on the day she first took possession.
Exterminators treated the property. The fleas allegedly persisted over the following months.
The lease stated that the tenant would be responsible for "controlling and eliminating household pests." The landlord relied on that clause, arguing the infestation was the tenant's problem.
The tenant argued that the VRLTA requires a landlord to keep the property fit and habitable, and that a lease cannot contract around it.
What the court decided
The court ruled for the tenant on the governing principle: a provision in a lease agreement purporting to waive a tenant's rights or remedies as required by law is unenforceable, and the VRLTA does provide a warranty of habitability that cannot be waived.
What that does not mean. It does not mean landlords are automatically liable for every pest. It does not repeal the tenant's own duties under § 55.1-1227, which remain — keeping the occupied space free from pests, reporting promptly, and bearing costs caused by delay or by the tenant's own fault.
What it does mean. The lease clause is no longer a complete answer. A landlord who points to it still has to contend with the habitability duty under § 55.1-1220.
Why the case mattered so much
Because of an asymmetry in the statute that most summaries never mention.
§ 55.1-1227, setting out tenant duties, names insects and pests explicitly and assigns financial responsibility in defined circumstances.
§ 55.1-1220, setting out landlord duties, does not mention insects, pests, vermin, or extermination anywhere. The landlord's obligation reaches pests only through the requirement to keep the premises fit and habitable.
So before this decision the landlord's side had an explicit statutory hook plus a lease clause, and the tenant's side had an inference. Parrish v. Vance established that the inference holds and that the lease clause cannot displace it.
Repeated treatment is part of the story
The facts matter here as much as the holding.
Exterminators came. Treatment happened. The fleas allegedly persisted anyway.
That shape — treatment that occurs but does not work — is common and is legally different from a landlord who simply refuses. A landlord who ignores a complaint is easy to characterise. A landlord who sends someone three times and still has an infested unit raises the question of whether the attempts were reasonable and whether the premises are, in fact, habitable.
If your situation is the second kind, document each visit and the condition after it. The sequence is the argument.
What it changes for each side
If you are a tenant whose lease assigns pest control to you
The clause exists, but it does not by itself defeat a habitability claim.
Your action: send written notice regardless of what the lease says, and keep the record. Your statutory duties under § 55.1-1227 still apply — report promptly, and keep your own space in order, because delay and fault do shift cost.
If the landlord has treated repeatedly without success
This is the fact pattern in the case.
Your action: get a written report from a licensed operator describing the current condition and, if the operator will say so, whether prior treatment appears to have been adequate. That document is the difference between "I say it's still bad" and evidence.
If you are a landlord relying on a pest clause
The clause is not doing the work you may think it is.
Your action: treat promptly, use licensed operators, document every visit, and observe the 48-hour notice requirement under § 55.1-1223 before any pesticide application. More for landlords →
If you are a property manager drafting leases
A provision that purports to waive statutory rights is unenforceable.
Your action: review pest clauses for language that reads as a waiver rather than as an allocation of ordinary housekeeping duties.
What to do with this decision
Citing a case is not the same as making an argument, and a filing that just names it will not carry itself.
What the decision gives you is an answer to a specific objection. When a landlord says "the lease makes it your responsibility," you now have a published appellate holding that the lease cannot waive the statutory duty.
The rest of your case still rests on the ordinary elements: written notice, a reasonable opportunity to remedy, and evidence of the condition.
Before you call: what costs what
An inspection and a treatment are two separate services with separate prices, and conflating them is the most common way people end up surprised by a bill.
| Typical Virginia range | What it produces | |
|---|---|---|
| Wood-destroying insect inspection and report | $65–$200 | the NPMA-33 form |
| General pest inspection | often free where the company expects to quote treatment | a verbal or written assessment |
| Termite treatment | $500–$2,000; more where damage is extensive | a treatment record |
| Structural repair | quoted by a contractor, frequently the largest of the three | an invoice, not a pest control document |
What is usually free: a quote for treatment, once a company has seen the problem.
What is usually not: the inspection report used in a real estate transaction, and any visit that produces a document rather than a price.
Ask which applies before you book. A company quoting one figure covering both inspection and treatment is not quoting what a sales contract or a lender requires.
Common misunderstandings
"The landlord is now responsible for all pests." The decision addresses waiver by lease. It does not eliminate tenant duties under § 55.1-1227.
"My lease clause is void." A provision purporting to waive statutory rights is unenforceable. That is narrower than the whole clause being void for all purposes.
"I don't need to report the infestation now." You do. § 55.1-1227 requires prompt notification, and delay can shift added costs to you.
"This means I automatically win." It removes one defence. The case still turns on notice, opportunity to remedy, and evidence.
"It only applies to fleas." The facts involved fleas; the holding is about waiver of statutory rights and the warranty of habitability.
What to ask a pest control company
- Will you provide a written report describing the current condition, separate from an invoice?
- Under what name is your Virginia pesticide business license held?
- Based on what you see, can you say how long this infestation has likely been established?
- If the unit has been treated before, does the treatment appear to have been adequate for this pest?
- What would a complete treatment involve, and how many visits?
The fourth question is the one that speaks directly to the fact pattern in this case. Not every company will answer it; ask before booking.
What to have ready
Your lease with the pest clause, the dates and copies of your written notices, dates of every treatment visit, the condition after each, photographs with dates, and any written report from a licensed operator.
Frequently asked questions
When was it decided? March 12, 2024, by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Does it apply to my county? It is a decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia and states a principle of Virginia law.
Does it apply to bed bugs and roaches? The holding concerns waiver of statutory rights and the warranty of habitability, not a particular species. Whether a specific infestation renders a unit unfit is a question of evidence.
Can my landlord still charge me for treatment? Under § 55.1-1227, yes — where you unreasonably delayed reporting, or where the infestation resulted from your own fault.
Do I still need written notice? Yes. The decision does not remove the notice requirements that every tenant remedy depends on.
Verify before you pay anyone
VDACS publishes an updated list of licensed pesticide businesses weekly, with a public lookup confirming an active Pesticide Business License. Wood-destroying pest control is category 7b under 2VAC5-685-70.
Ask which name the license is held under — it matters when a report may be shown to a landlord or a court.