Liability
in Australia
Below is a selection of past court
cases in the US involving damages due to mould. As the sampling
of cases demonstrates, mould-related lawsuits may target different
types of defendants, including contractors, subcontractors, construction
managers, property managers, architects, construction component
suppliers, and building owners, as well as commercial and personal
lines insurers. Damages may include the cost of mould remediation,
loss of property, and health-related claims.
Disclaimer
The following selection of current
and past litigation relating to mould damage is based on third-party
sources, including Web sites and the news media. The descriptions
have not been verified by an independent examination of court
records and this information is provided ‘as is’ without
warranty of any kind.
Jenses v. AMGEN Inc.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against
his employer in October 2000, alleging that exposure to mould
in one of the company’s buildings had caused a variety of
ailments. The plaintiff is seeking $2 million.
J.J. Acquisition Corp. v.
Pacific Gulf Properties
Employees of a California newspaper
filed suit in September 2000 against the owner of their building,
seeking $10 million for illnesses resulting from exposure to several
types of toxic mould.
Spectrum Community Association
v. Bristol House Partnership
The Spectrum homeowners association
sued the developers and contractors in June 2000, alleging that
construction defects caused the growth of toxic mould in walls
and ceilings of the housing units. The homeowners claim that exposure
to mould resulted in a variety of adverse health effects.
Crane v. Bank of America
An Ohio hotel manager sued the hotel
owners, alleging that he experienced adverse health effects subsequent
to participating in remediation of toxic mould in the hotel. The
lawsuit was filed in March 2000.
Fickett v. Davis Management
Corp.
The plaintiff sued the owner of an
apartment complex where she had previously lived, alleging that
she suffered injuries and her husband died as a result of exposure
to toxic mould and bacteria. The lawsuit was filed in February
2000.
McCullogh v. USC Real Estate
Development Corp.
The plaintiffs are a California condominium
association suing the developers, contractors, and property manager
for construction defects that they allege were responsible for
toxic mould that caused personal injuries and property damage.
The lawsuit was filed in November 1999.
Andrejevic et al. v. Board
of Education of Wheaton-Warrenville School District No. 200, DuPage
County, IL
This class-action suit was filed
by approximately 1700 students, parents, and teachers. The plaintiffs
are seeking $67 million for injuries caused by exposure to toxic
mould and other indoor pollutants following a flood at the elementary
school. The lawsuit, filed in July 1999, claims that the school
district did not properly remediate flood damage, resulting in
growth of the mould.
MacDonald v. Dufferin-Peel
Catholic District School Board
Ontario Superior Court
The plaintiffs in this proposed class
action lawsuit include students exposed to mould at various schools
between September 1995 and June 1999, and their parents. The lawsuit
alleges that the children’s exposure to toxic moulds resulted
in a variety of ailments. The plaintiffs are seeking $1 billion
in general damages, $500 million in special damages and costs,
and an additional $500 million in damages to the parents.
Erin Brockovich v. Robert
Selleck
California
According to a story in the Sacramento
Bee dated 3/8/01, Erin Brockovich filed a personal injury/construction
defect complaint against the former owner (Robert Selleck) and
the builder, alleging that each had a role in causing water intrusion
that led to the growth of mould. Brockovich alleges that she and
members of her family have suffered adverse health effects from
exposure to the mould.
Reber v. ServiceMaster
Indiana
A story published by the Indianapolis
Star on 8/12/01, Indianapolis Star says that Dennis and Debbie
Reber recently filed a lawsuit alleging that ServiceMaster did
a poor job removing moisture from the[ir] 4,600-square-foot home,
causing mould to grow throughout the house. According to the Indianapolis
Star report, attempts to clear the mould have already cost $43,000,
and current estimates predict cost of removal to be $100,000.
The article says that Allstate, the Rebers’ insurer, will
only partially cover the cost of remediation efforts.
Melinda Ballard v. Farmers
Insurance Group
State court in Austin, Texas awarded
Melinda Ballard and her family $32.1 million in June 2001. The
$32.1 million award represents $6.2 million for replacement of
the home and contents, $5 million for mental anguish, $12 million
in punitive damages, and $8.9 million for legal fees. It has been
reported that Ms. Ballard intends to pursue further legal action
against Farmers for health-related claims.
Thomas Anderson v. Allstate
Insurance Company
On October 3, 2000, a California
jury ordered Allstate Insurance to pay a policyholder $18.5 million
in a coverage dispute over mould in the plaintiff’s home
in Placerville, California. The award included $500,000 in damages
and $18 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the
award to $3 million. The case is being appealed.
Marina Eddy, et al. v. C.B.
Richard Ellis Inc., Henry Knott, AMG Realty Partners LP, Kronos
Property Holdings N.V. and Maritime Reality Corp.
Three plaintiffs filed a suit claiming
personal injuries stemming from exposure to mould and fungi in
their workplace, an office building in Maryland. Injuries claimed
include asthma and reactive airways disorder. The suit alleges
that mould and fungi “were allowed to flourish” in
the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
system. The complaint was filed in the Baltimore County Circuit
Court in Maryland.
Dean H.M. Chenensky, et
al. v. Glenwood Management Corp., et al.
No. 120461/00, N.Y. Sup., N.Y. Co.
The plaintiffs seek approximately
$180 million for injuries and personal property damage caused
by their exposure to mould while living in the apartment owned
by Glenwood Management Corp. and operated by East 77th Realty
LLC. The plaintiff maintains that the defendants knew of the mould
but failed to remediate it and did not notify the tenant of the
condition.
Robert E. Coiro, et al.
v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
The plaintiffs sought punitive and
exemplary damages in the sum of $50 million, as well as an additional
$5 million for services lost. Coiro alleged that he suffered from
personal injuries and pain and suffering as a result of employment
with LaGuardia Community College at the premises owned by Dormitory
Authority of the State of New York. The complaint, filed in Queens
County Supreme Court, maintained that toxic mould and fungus,
water leaks, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, improper ventilation,
and other dangerous conditions in the building created “an
unsafe, contaminated and dangerous environment, all to the plaintiff’s
detriment and loss.”
Charles Blum, et al. v.
Chubb Custom Insurance Co., et al.
No. 99-3563-E, Texas Dist., Nueces
Co.
Texas homeowners Charles and Leigh
Blum sued Chubb Custom Insurance Co., Chubb Group of Insurance
Companies, and Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, claiming
that the insurer(s) denied, delayed, or failed to pay or properly
investigate claims stemming from accidental plumbing leaks and
roof damage. The case went to trial, and after 2-1/2 weeks the
case was settled for $1.5 million on December 18, 2000.
Centex-Rooney Construction
Co., Inc. v. Martin County, Florida
In an earlier lawsuit, Martin County
sued its construction manager for dampness that promoted mould
growth and excessive humidity in a courthouse. Fifteen employees
in the building alleged injuries caused by exposure to the mould.
The source of the water problem was the exterior insulation finish
system (EIFS). On an appeal, the appeals court affirmed the $14
million verdict against the construction manager. Martin County
also secured out-of-court settlements worth $3 million from other
defendants.
Saddler v. County of Tulare
Approximately 100 employees at a
Visalia County, California courthouse filed a lawsuit against
multiple defendants, alleging that the workers experienced adverse
health effects from exposure to toxic mould in the building. The
suit says that various contractors negligently designed and built
the courthouse and that the county did not properly maintain the
building. Defendants include: the County of Tulare, Kitchell Capital
Contruction Management, Garcia Construction Inc., Bakersfield
Glass Co., Superior Academy Granite Co., Fresno Marble and Tile,
San Francisco Lathing Co., Pacific Electrical & Mechanical
Co., E.H. Moore & Sons, Kitchell CEM, Beaver Construction,
Forcum/Mackey Construction Inc., C.W. Forcum Construction Inc.,
and Turrupseed Electric Service Inc.
Elisabeth B. Krant v. County
of Tulare, et al.
No. 00-0190367, Calif. Super., Tulare
Co.
Claiming that she was exposed to
mould, Superior Court Judge Elisabeth Krant sued the defendants
for dangerous condition of public property against public employee,
fraudulent concealment, battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence
by construction defendants and continuing nuisance.
Fulgham v. Merit Construction
Co.
A teacher at Woodward Middle School
in Bainbridge Island School District, Washington, filed a suit
against the general contractor, construction manager, and architect
of the school building. The plaintiff maintains that construction
defects resulted in toxic mould in the classroom and in other
locations in the building, causing personal injuries. The defendants
in the case subsequently filed suit against several subcontractors
(Merit Construction Co. v. Dunham Glass Inc.).
Mielke v. Riverside School
District
Teachers and students at Riverside
High School in Washington filed suit against the Riverside School
District, the Riverside Superintendent of Schools, various contractors,
and the architect of a school addition. The suit alleges construction
defects, faulty design of the ventilation system, and faulty design
of the windows led to toxic mould in the building and resulting
adverse health effects. The plaintiffs also maintain that the
school district violated civil rights by failing to “exercise
reasonable care in insuring a safe school environment.”
The defendants have countersued each other and have sued subcontractors
as third party defendants.
Foppe et al. v. Archstone
Communities Inc.
Two former tenants in a Seattle apartment
building filed a suit against the building owner for substandard
construction and maintenance resulting in toxic mould that caused
chronic illnesses. The plaintiffs are also suing for property
damage due to the mould.
Samaris S. Davis, et al.
v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, et al.
No. 116331/98, N.Y. Sup. N.Y. Co.
In May 1999, about 495 plaintiffs
sought approximately $8 billion for personal injury and property
damage due to mould and fungi contamination in two apartment buildings
in Manhattan. The defendants were the owners of the building.
On August 8, 2001, a New York judge denied class certification
for the case. Class certification was sought on the liability
issues only. A wrongful death suit has also been filed against
the owners in connection with one of three deaths that may be
linked to the mould exposure.
Sharon R. Wheeler, et al.
v. Avalonbay Communities, et al.<
No. BC 237274, Calif. Supr., Los
Angeles Co.
A group of apartment residents sued
the building owners and others for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied warranty of habitability, public nuisance,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and
unfair business practices.
Susan Burke v. Board of
Directors of the Pottsgrove School District, et al.
No. 00-CV-6061, E.D. Pa.
A school nurse asked to transfer
to another school in the district after environmental tests revealed
mould in the school building and her doctor’s determination
that the plaintiff is allergic to mould. The request was refused.
The plaintiff sued the school district, claiming violations of
the Americans with Disability Act, her constitutional rights,
and the Whistleblower Law.
Molly K. Atwood, et al.
v. City of Vancouver, Washington
No. 012000253, Wash. Super., Clark
Co.
The plaintiff claims that her home
sustained flood damage because of the negligent construction and
maintenance of a city storm water detention facility. Further,
she claimed that the city did not properly remediate the flood
damage, resulting in mould growth that eventually caused her and
her family to abandon the home.
Elizabeth Stroot v. New
Haverford Partnership, et al.
Elizabeth Stroot and three other
plaintiffs were awarded damages for medical expenses, permanent
impairment, and pain and suffering associated to exposure to various
mycotoxins, bacteria, fungi, and other toxins while living in
an apartment complex owned by New Haverford Partnership. In May
1999, a jury awarded $1 million in damages to Stroot and $40,000
to Joletta Watson. In addition, the jury awarded damages for expenditures
made for substitute housing: $5,000 to Stroot, $1,500 to Angela
McCarthy, and $3,700 to Lois Schlindler.
New Haverford Partnership,
et al. v. Elizabeth Stroot, et al.
No. 95C-05-074-HLA, Del. Sup.
In a previous lawsuit, Elizabeth
Stroot and three other plaintiffs were awarded damages for medical
expenses, permanent impairment, and pain and suffering associated
to exposure to various mycotoxins, bacteria, fungi, and other
toxins while living in an apartment complex owned by New Haverford
Partnership. In May 1999, a jury awarded $1 million in damages
to Stroot and $40,000 to Joletta Watson. In addition, the jury
awarded damages for expenditures made for substitute housing:
$5,000 to Stroot, $1,500 to Angela McCarthy, and $3,700 to Lois
Schlindler. In May 2001, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the
award to the residents.
Tarp v. E&W Associates,
et al.
Fresno County Superior Court Case
No. 5965603
Plaintiffs alleged a loss of business
and bodily injury due to growth of toxic moulds in a rental space
leased from the defendants for an interior design business. The
husband and wife plaintiffs claimed economic damages in excess
of $1.8 million and general non-economic damages of an additional
$3 million.
Berry v. Mission Terrace
Homeowners Association
Three families sued their homeowners
association in 1998, alleging that exposure to toxic mould had
caused a variety of ailments. The case was settled for $545,000.
Doe Homeowners v. Roe Seller
New owners of a house in California
sued the sellers in 1997, alleging that toxic mould caused bodily
injuries and property damage. The case was settled for $1,353,000.
Komiyama v. City of Rialto
The plaintiffs alleged injuries due
to the growth of mould following an incident in which raw sewage
backed up into their home. The alleged injuries included brain
damage and respiratory infections. The suit was settled in 1997
for $600,818.
Club at Wood Ranch v. Roberts
Group
No. 21522 Ventura Co., Cal., Super.
Ct.
In this case, a homeowners group
sued builders and contractors, alleging problems due to toxic
mould. The group settled for $1.3 million.
O’Hara v. Stangland
et al.
A Eugene, Oregon family sued general
contractor Jeff Stangland, contractor Harvey & Son, and designer
Michael Cockram for $3.5 million, alleging that faulty construction
led to the growth of mould in their home and subsequent adverse
health effects. Shortly before the start of the trial, Harvey
& Son reached an undisclosed settlement with the O’Haras.
Shortly after the beginning of the trial, the claim was dropped
and a cash settlement agreed to. The O’Hara’s attorney
said that the settlement would be paid by Stangland’s insurance
company.
.jpg)
