"Mold is gold," according to some in the claims
industry. The growth of these claims has been exponential, with more than 10,000
mold claims currently pending in the United States, particularly in Florida,
California, Texas, and Arizona. Is mold a real health threat? Are remediators
actually able to solve the problem? These and other questions remain unresolved.
Barry Zalma Inc.
When insureds, public insurance adjusters, and plaintiffs' lawyers speak
of claims against insurance companies claiming damage by mold, they often say,
"Mold is gold." Mold claims are a growth industry. The number of claims for
damage by mold has increased by more than 1,000 percent in some areas. Mold
claims appear in both wet areas, like Houston, as well as in dry areas, like
On February 12, 2004, the Wall Street Journal led its "Personal Journal" section with an article entitled: "Forget Plastics.
The Future Is in Mold." Michelle Higgins, writing for the Journal, concluded that, since there are
no federal or state regulations that control mold companies, mold inspectors
and remediation companies have sprouted like mushrooms in a dark, warm basement.
None of these companies requires licenses or certification to operate.
The new industry—mold remediation—is trying to create standards. For example,
the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration, has issued a mold remediation
Certification Standard (IICRC S520), as has the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). No local, state, or federal agency, however, has
imposed standards or required licensing of mold inspection or remediation companies.
Insurers were not prepared to deal with claims of damage from mold. In addition,
there is no scientific standard for the amount of mold, if any, that is toxic
to humans. As a result, litigation has exploded in every state (but concentrated
in Texas, California, Florida, and Arizona) with more than 10,000 pending lawsuits.
Five years ago, there were no mold-removal companies. Today, estimates indicate
there are between 10,000 and 20,000 mold-removal companies in the United States
according information the Wall Street Journal obtained from the Indoor Air Quality Association.
Insurers, and their claims personnel, who are not prepared to deal with the
constant growth of mold claims will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to
resolve a claim from a leaking water pipe that settled 5 years before for $1,500.
Mold and fungi exist everywhere. The spores they release as part of their
reproductive process are claimed to cause illness and injury to humans and destroy
property containing cellulose. Wood, paper, and the paper coverings of drywall
are all vulnerable to mold. Mold growth can destroy, by slow rot, buildings
designed to withstand major earthquakes. As a result, litigation claiming injury
due to fungal or mold contamination is a growing industry.
The term "mold" is a layman's term for microscopic filamentous fungi. Mold
is the microscopic version of the mushroom. Mold is everywhere. It is a living
thing that is neither animal nor what is usually considered a plant. It grows
naturally outdoors. The spores, which molds create to reproduce, are present
in the air. When mold moves indoors, it grows rapidly in environments that contain
an excessive amount of moisture.
Many molds are benign. Some are wonderful and tasty, like mushrooms and the
fungi that convert milk to cheese. Other molds, called mycotoxins, produce toxins
that can be harmful to human health. Mycotoxins can be absorbed into the human
body through the intestinal lining, airway paths, and skin. Human exposure to
mold can be dangerous.
Mycologists have estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of species
of mold, each having its own preference for moisture, temperature, and food
source. Mold grows on all plants, animal matter, and in soil. Spores are blown
about by the wind and are almost always found in indoor and outdoor air. They
are a normal component of house dust.
Mold spores are hardened containers sufficient to create new mold creatures.
When the spores bump into dry walls, they simply rebound and continue floating.
When they bump into wet walls, however, they stick.
The main body of the mold can't handle everything it absorbs. Much of the
nourishment absorbed by the mold is poisonous. To solve this problem, they spray
out the excess, releasing it as a gas. At any moment during the day, there will
be freshly landed molds on the walls of every home in the country excreting
carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide, ethanol fumes, various alcohols, and much
Concentrations are generally too low to detect (except with special equipment).
When the mold levels are high enough to produce this odor, they are likely visible.
Enormous colonies of mold will appear as an unpleasant fur-like growth on walls,
floors, or ceilings. Even when the density is too low to see, many thousands
of separately plugged-in mold individuals exist on a home's inner walls.
Mold typically grows on organic materials that remain moist for more than
24 hours. Materials exposed to high humidity can become moist enough to support
mold growth. Good housekeeping requires, therefore, a reduction in humidity
and the drying out of any moisture that might exist in organic compounds that
could support mold growth. If proper maintenance is not followed, the volatile
organic compounds released by some molds that are toxic and associated with
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) may grow and cause injury.
Molds are extremely hearty living things. They can be anywhere and they are
difficult to kill until they grow into colonies large enough to be seen by the
When mold grows in moist organic materials, building occupants may begin
to notice odors and suffer from a variety of health problems associated with
mold exposure. Molds produce allergens, irritants, and in some cases, toxins
that endanger humans and animals. Some toxic molds such as aspergillus, cladosporium,
penicillium, stachybotrys, and trichoderma produce mycotoxins capable of causing
severe health problems. Mold spores and fragments can produce allergic reactions
in sensitive individuals regardless of whether the mold is dead or alive. Repeated
exposure to mold or mold spores may cause previously nonsensitive individuals
to become sensitive.
Mold has been documented to weaken people's immune systems, leading to a
variety of infections and problems. People with weak immune systems (i.e., immune-compromised
or immune-suppressed individuals) are more vulnerable to infections by molds
(as well as more vulnerable than healthy persons to mold toxins). Healthy individuals
are usually not vulnerable to opportunistic infections from airborne mold exposure.
However, molds can cause common skin diseases, such as athlete's foot as well
as other infections, such as yeast infections.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) prefers
the term "Indoor Air Quality" (IAQ) rather than SBS. If 20 percent of the workforce
has symptoms—including watering eyes, hoarseness, headaches, dry itchy skin,
dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations, miscarriages, shortness of breath, nosebleeds,
chronic fatigue, mental fogginess, tremors, swelling of legs or ankles, and
cancer—the building may be labeled a "sick building." The telling factor is
if the symptoms ease when workers are at home or on vacation.
The Center for Legal Policy of the Manhattan Institute published a paper
on July 17, 2003, titled "The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation." The authors
of the Center's article found that one of the triggers of the thousands of mold-related
lawsuits was a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC scientists took samples and concluded that molds, including stachybotrys
chartarum, could be at fault for illnesses suffered by a small group of children.
[Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell, A New Plague—Mold
Litigation: How Junk Science and Hysteria Built an Industry, published
by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.]
Publicity arising from the CDC's 1995 Cleveland report caused the CDC to
form two expert panels to reexamine the initial findings. The CDC convened a
panel of outside experts and an internal working group, including epidemiologists
and an industrial hygienist, to evaluate the Cleveland study. The working group
issued a report on June 17, 1999, which was dramatic in its scientific indictment
of the initial study. The Cleveland researchers apparently misdiagnosed the
illness of the affected infants and made numerous statistical and survey errors.
Regardless, the 1995 report is still cited in court as evidence that molds are
In "Update: Pulmonary Hemorrhage/Hemosiderosis Among Infants—Cleveland, Ohio,
1993-1996," 49(09) Morbidity & Mortality Weekly
Report 180 (March 10, 2000), the CDC published a further report in 2000,
concluding that an association between stachybotrys and pulmonary hemorrhage
in infants "was not proven." The update noted, with some concern, that the earlier
findings had been cited in health guidelines, congressional testimony, and the
popular media. Lawyers, plaintiffs, insurers, and courts ignored the scientific
evidence and continued to allow evidence based on the 1995 study. More studies
are ongoing, attempting to justify court judgments that supported major jury
Melinda Ballard, the plaintiff who recovered $32 million (later reduced to
$4 million) from Farmers Insurance Exchange (FIE) because of a mold problem,
is the founder of Policyholders of America, an organization designed to help
people recover from their insurers. This case should be studied as a model of
how not to investigate and adjust a claim of damage resulting from mold.
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reversed much of the
trial court's opinion in Ronald Allison/Fire Insurance
Exchange v Fire Insurance Exchange, A Member of the Farmers Insurance Group/Mary
Melinda Ballard and Ronald Allison, et al., 98 SW3d 227 (Tex App, Dist
3, 2002), and explained the factual background that resulted in an improper
and excessive judgment against FIE and why there was no bad faith.
In 1990 Ms. Ballard and her husband Mr. Allison, bought a large house in
Dripping Springs, Texas, for $275,000 at a foreclosure sale. The main house
was approximately 7,400 square feet and had serious physical problems. She insured
the house with FIE, a member insurer of the Farmers Insurance Group, for $313,000
on the house and $187,800 for the contents. Court records indicate that Ms.
Ballard was in constant contact with FIE's claims department, making claims
for water leaks and damages caused by leaking plumbing.
As the plumbing failed in different parts of her home, Ms. Ballard was able
to use the insurance claims money (all legitimately obtained) to remodel her
house. As a person who was knowledgeable about insurance (see www.policyholdersofamerica.org),
Ms. Ballard recovered money sufficient to indemnify most of her original losses.
By the time litigation began, Ballard had become dissatisfied with the services
provided to her by FIE. The last series of claims were assigned to an inexperienced
adjuster, Theresa McConnell, whose claims handling errors, admitted to at trial,
resulted in verdict against FIE for more than $32 million. The Texas Court of
Appeal reversed the punitive damages but allowed Ballard to keep over $4 million
in compensatory damages.
Professional and knowledgeable claims handling should avoid litigation and
charges of bad faith. Ballard won her case against Farmers because the Farmers
employees admitted they lied to her and that the statement that "Farmers gets
you back where you belong" was "just an advertising slogan." The jury was clearly
A tropical storm hit Texas just days after the judgment and, with the news
from the verdict, a statewide hysteria over what was called "toxic" mold grew
exponentially. Plaintiff law firms created "mold information" websites and
mold remediation experts appeared to serve the need fueled by the toxic-mold
Although the hysteria no longer controls the public or the insurance industry,
mold litigation continues to grow across the country, resulting in extremely
large verdicts against builders, property owners, and insurers. The National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies tracks mold suits at its website
Every judgment or settlement claiming damages from mold make headlines and cause
a new hysteria.
In November 2003, a Tulare County, California, Superior Court judge settled
a lawsuit against the County over exposure to a dangerous mold found above a
ceiling tile in her court chambers. The County agreed to pay Judge Elisabeth
Krant $40,000, but did not admit liability in addition to the $277,500 she obtained
from 10 contractors who built the Tulare County Courthouse where the mold was
found. She expects to collect from 5 more contractors an additional $80,000
Judge Krant, who was out of work for a year with illnesses she attributed
to mold exposure, now works in the courthouse in Tulare. The mold found in a
tile over Judge Krant's office was found to be stachybotrys, which she linked
to certain illnesses. [Judge Krant's story was reported at www.moldupdate.com.]
On November 26, 2003, Tony Doris of the Miami
Daily Business Review reported that one of the nation's largest real
estate investment trusts will pay a multimillion-dollar settlement. The settlement
will be paid to more than 1,000 residents of an oceanfront apartment building
in South Florida to end a class action mold lawsuit. Total repair, settlement,
and related costs in the case could reach $25 million.
At Harbour House, experts retained by the plaintiffs found mold in 450 of
the tower's 452 units. In some units, they found mold spores equal to 100 times
the number of spores naturally occurring outdoors. Since mold is present in
the environment everywhere, and since 100 times natural outdoor levels have
not been shown to cause injury, the settlement is an expression of fear of a
runaway jury verdict in a class action suit.
Often, the largest expense incurred by insurers faced with mold claims are
the fees of experts to test for mold and provide opinions on what is needed
to remediate the situation. It is imperative that every claims person faced
with a mold claim understand how the sampling is done, and the weight that should
be given to the findings.
An expert testing for mold will collect samples for laboratory analysis.
These may include: air samples, bulk/surface sampling, dust collection samples,
tape lift sample, and wipe or "swab" samples. OSHA recommends that, in most
cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. Air sampling
for mold may not be part of a routine assessment because decisions about appropriate
remediation strategies often can be made on the basis of a visual inspection.
The first step in any mold investigation is to inspect for any evidence of
water damage and visible mold growth. In many cases, it is not economically
practical or useful to test for mold growth on surfaces or for airborne spores
in the building. OSHA does not recommend testing because:
Consultation with an industrial hygienist or other environmental health or
safety professional with experience in microbial investigations should be performed
before a decision is made that sampling for mold is necessary or useful, and
to identify persons who can conduct any necessary sampling. Sampling results
can be used as a guide to determine the extent of an infestation and the effectiveness
of the cleanup. Interpretation is best left to the industrial hygienist or other
environmental health or safety professional.
In all situations, the underlying cause of water accumulation must be rectified
or fungal growth will recur. Any initial water infiltration should be stopped
and cleaned immediately. An immediate response (within 24 to 48 hours) and thorough
cleanup, drying, and/or removal of water damaged materials will prevent or limit
mold growth. If the source of water is elevated humidity, relative humidity
should be maintained at levels below 60 percent to inhibit mold growth.
Emphasis should be on ensuring proper repairs of the building infrastructure,
so that water damage and moisture buildup does not recur. The work area and
areas used by remediation workers for egress should be cleaned with a damp cloth
or mop and a detergent solution. OSHA provides detailed instructions on what
is necessary for mold remediation.
Every insured, insurer, or their respective lawyers involved in claims regarding
injury or damage due to mold or fungal infestations, must thoroughly understand
every aspect of the mold claim. Knowledge about mold and mold claims is the
only means by which insurers can successfully control covered mold claims or
defeat those that are not covered. Knowledge in possession of an insured, a
public insurance adjuster, or a plaintiff's lawyer will allow them to recover
of insurance benefits owed to their clients and protect them from adverse decisions
of inadequately trained claims personnel. Mold:
A Comprehensive Claims Guide is the only available source that covers
every aspect of mold claims from governmental regulation to insurance policy
interpretation, from claims investigation to litigation. It can be used as the
basis for a training program for claims personnel or a resource for litigators
pursuing or defending a mold claim.
A full table of contents is available for review at www.stpub.com/pubs/mold.htm. You can contact the publisher, Specialty
Technical Publishers at www.stpub.com or (800) 251-0381.
© Barry Zalma 2004
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.
Please use the print button on the IRMI toolbar to print/preview this page.
© 2000-2015 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.