Rinat B. Klier Erich
Mold litigation is unique in that it is a cross over between design and construction defect, personal injury and property damage. Mold litigation is expert-intensive and it involves, construction law, personal injury law, contracts and insurance. Mold litigation in particular, has expanded into many forms of litigants including, property owners/buyers, employees, tenants, or merely building occupants. These claims gained a lot of publicity (for example, the Ed McMahom, the Tonight Show comedian). Yet, the science regarding mold and whether it can cause significant or permanent health effects is not established. Specifically, because when the exposure to mold stops, like most allergies, the symptoms disappear.
Molds are a type of fungi that strives in moisture. They grow on other materials. Outdoors, molds are an integral part of natural processes, breaking down leaves, wood and plant debris. However, indoors, they can be unhealthy. There are over 10,000 species of mold, of which around 100 can cause allergies in humans, approximately 50 are pathogenic (i.e., they can grow inside the human body), and about 50 are capable of creating “mycotoxins,” which are released by the mold and cause toxic reactions in healthy individuals. Toxic mold is different from regular mold. It normally exudes a dank, musty odor. It is also capable of producing mycotoxins. Among the types that are considered toxic and which are the subject of most lawsuits, are: Stachybotrys chartarum, Aspergillus and Penicillium. The most common toxic mold encountered in lawsuits is Stachybotrys (“black mold”).
Common areas for indoor mold growth include bathroom tile, kitchen (appliances and sink), basement walls, areas around windows where moisture condenses, and near leaky water fountains or sinks. Common causes of water or moisture problems resulting in mold growth include, roof leaks, delays in proper building and maintenance, condensation from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, condensation associated with high humidity or cold spots in a building, flooding from plumbing failures or heavy rains, slow leaks in plumbing fixtures and pipes, and the malfunction of humidification systems. Interestingly, mold infestation is an increasingly problematic issue in newer buildings and homes because more recently constructed buildings and homes are much tighter and more energy efficient, and occupants rarely open windows, resulting in less ventilation of the indoor environment.
Mold cases start with blaming the defendants for creating the moisture that allows mold to grow. Some cases however, also allege knowledge and failure to disclose, and others allege failure to repair or eradicate the mold properly once it is discovered. Plaintiffs in mold litigation allege a variety of illnesses and adverse health effects: from headaches, nausea, fatigue, asthma, hay fever-like symptoms (runny nose and scratchy throat) and respiratory problems, to fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, reactive airway dysfunction syndrome, difficulty with memory and other cognitive functions and even cancer. The more common allergic reactions in individuals are coughing, sneezing and breathing problems. The soft tissues around the nose, mouth, trachea, and lungs are extremely vulnerable to mycotoxin contamination. Yet, there is a lack of scientific consensus on the more seriously alleged illnesses and what level of mold exposure may cause such illnesses. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website states that a causal link between the presence of the toxic mold and pulmonary hemorrhage or memory loss has not been proven.
In addition to the illness to humans, the mycotoxins also cause a significant amount of property damage. Once inside, mold can contaminate anything in the surrounding area including clothing, furniture, and works of art. Once contaminated, these items usually have to be destroyed. Building materials and fixtures are also fertile ground for mold growth. Therefore, building material typically must be removed and replaced, which is quite costly.
As a result of many mold cases and large verdicts, some insurance companies have changed their coverages and either exclude mold claims or offer sub-limits only for mold claim. In California, the California Association of Realtors created a mold disclosure that each buyer receives during a purchase transaction explaining that mold can arise where there is water intrusion and the buyers are recommended to obtain mold tests if they learn of past water intrusion. Some molds cannot be seen (they may exist behind drywall, in the carpet or under the sub-floor) and therefore an air sample must be performed to detect mold spores in the air.
Currently there are no government (such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) or industry standards that specify allowable or acceptable levels of indoor, airborne molds. However, the EPA issued a guidance document for mold remediation projects that provides some general guidelines for evaluating and responding to an indoor mold problem.
Given this scientific uncertainty, toxic mold litigation frequently hinges on expert witness testimony. The ability of the plaintiff on the one hand to establish causation between the alleged injuries and the particular species of mold, and the defense expert rejecting that link will determine how the case goes. In some cases, judges do not allow plaintiff’s testimony without a preliminary hearing establishing solid medical evidence of such link. The “Daubert” standard comes from the 1992 United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., holding that any medical or scientific opinions must be reviewed by the judge as the “gatekeeper” to decide whether the evidence is admissible.
In addition to proving the existence of mold, plaintiffs must prove a chain of custody between the testing company and the results of the testing. An environmental testing firm or laboratory has to conduct mold sampling in the allegedly contaminated area at the time of exposure. A link also has to be established that mold existed at the time the defendant was involved (for example, if the claim involves a sale, that the mold existed in the structure before the sale). The hurdles of having a properly certified testing and lab facilities, physical connection between the contaminated area and the exposed plaintiff, and a link to the defendant’s wrongful conduct are significant challenges. The main defenses focus is on convincing the court to exclude the plaintiff’s proposed “expert” testimony as scientifically unreliable, which is a real possibility in light of the lack of scientific consensus regarding mold toxicity and the questionable methodology utilized by many environmental sampling firms.
It is important to consider any water intrusion as a risk. Property owners (sellers) and property managers must also understand how to treat mold-infested areas once it is discovered. If litigation arises, it is usually prolonged and costly, but despite large verdicts, testing methodology and causation are difficult to prove.
Rinat B. Klier Erich Mold kesi ni ya kipekee katika kwamba ni msalaba juu kati ya kubuni na ujenzi kasoro, majeraha ya kibinafsi na uharibifu wa mali. Mashtaka ya ukungu ni ya wataalamu na inahusisha, sheria ya ujenzi, sheria ya jeraha la kibinafsi, mikataba na bima. Madai ya ukungu, hasa, yameenea katika aina nyingi za washtakiwa ikiwa ni pamoja na, wamiliki wa mali, wafanyikazi, wapangaji, au wenyeji wa jengo tu. "Hii ni moja ya sababu za kuvutia zaidi za kuonekana kwa Ed McMahon, mwigizaji wa ""Tonight Show.""" Hata hivyo, sayansi haijathibitishwa kuhusu kuvu na ikiwa linaweza kusababisha madhara makubwa au ya kudumu kwa afya. Kwa mfano, wakati wa kuambukizwa kwa kuvu, dalili za allergy huisha. Kuvu ni aina ya kuvu inayopenda unyevu. Zinakua kwenye vifaa vingine. Nje, kuvu ni sehemu muhimu ya michakato ya asili, kuvunja majani, mbao na mabaki ya mimea. Hata hivyo, ndani ya nyumba, zinaweza kuwa zenye kudhuru afya. Kuna zaidi ya spishi 10,000 za kuvu, kati ya hizo karibu 100 zinaweza kusababisha mzio kwa wanadamu, karibu 50 ni pathogenic (yaani, zinaweza kukua ndani ya mwili wa binadamu), na karibu 50 zina uwezo wa kuunda <unk> mycotoxins, <unk> ambayo hutolewa na kuvu na kusababisha athari za sumu kwa watu wenye afya. Kuvu zenye sumu ni tofauti na kuvu za kawaida. Kwa kawaida hutoa harufu mbaya ya umajimaji. Pia ina uwezo wa kutokeza sumu za kuvu. Miongoni mwa aina ambazo huonwa kuwa zenye sumu na ambazo ni mada ya kesi nyingi za kisheria, ni: Stachybotrys chartarum, Aspergillus na Penicillium. Aina ya kuvu yenye sumu inayopatikana kwa kawaida katika kesi za kisheria ni Stachybotrys (<unk>kuvu nyeusi<unk>). Sehemu za kawaida za ukuaji wa kuvu ndani ya nyumba ni pamoja na tile ya bafuni, jikoni (vifaa na sinki), kuta za chini ya ardhi, maeneo karibu na madirisha ambapo unyevu hufinyangwa, na karibu na chemchemi za maji au sinki zinazomwagika. Vyanzo vya kawaida vya maji au unyevu vinavyosababisha ukuaji wa kuvu ni pamoja na kuvuja kwa paa, kuchelewesha ujenzi na matengenezo sahihi, condensation kutoka kwa mfumo wa joto, uingizaji hewa, na mfumo wa hali ya hewa, condensation inayohusiana na unyevu wa juu au sehemu baridi katika jengo, mafuriko kutoka kwa kushindwa kwa mabomba au mvua kubwa, kuvuja polepole katika vifaa vya mabomba na mabomba, na kutofanya kazi vizuri kwa mifumo ya unyevu. Kwa kushangaza, kuambukizwa kwa kuvu ni tatizo kubwa katika majengo mapya na nyumba kwa sababu majengo na nyumba zilizojengwa hivi karibuni ni ngumu zaidi na zina nishati ya kutosha, na wakazi hawafungui madirisha mara nyingi, na kusababisha hewa kidogo ya mazingira ya ndani. Kesi za kuvu huanza kwa kuwapa mashtaka washtakiwa kwa kutokeza unyevu unaoruhusu kuvu kukua. Hata hivyo, baadhi ya kesi pia zinadai ujuzi na kushindwa kufichua, na wengine wanadai kushindwa kurekebisha au kuondoa kuvu vizuri mara tu inapogunduliwa. Mwendesha mashtaka katika kesi ya kuvu inadai magonjwa mbalimbali na athari mbaya kwa afya: kutoka maumivu ya kichwa, kichefuchefu, uchovu, pumu, dalili za homa ya nyasi (mwiba wa pua na koo la kukwaruza) na matatizo ya kupumua, kwa fibromyalgia, ugonjwa wa uchovu wa kudumu, ugonjwa wa kupumua, shida na kumbukumbu na kazi nyingine za utambuzi na hata kansa. Madhara ya mzio ya kawaida katika watu ni kikohozi, kupiga chafya na matatizo ya kupumua. Viungo laini vilivyo karibu na pua, mdomo, trachea, na mapafu huathiriwa sana na uchafuzi wa mycotoxin. Hata hivyo, kuna ukosefu wa makubaliano ya kisayansi kuhusu magonjwa mabaya zaidi na kiwango cha kuambukizwa na kuvu kinachoweza kusababisha magonjwa hayo. Kituo cha Marekani cha Kudhibiti na Kuzuia Magonjwa (CDC) kimesema kuwa uhusiano kati ya kuambukizwa na ugonjwa huo na kutokwa na kumbukumbu haujathibitishwa. Mbali na kuambukiza wanadamu, sumu za kuvu husababisha uharibifu mkubwa wa mali. Mara tu ndani, kuvu kwaweza kuchafua chochote kilicho karibu, kutia ndani mavazi, fanicha, na kazi za sanaa. Mara tu vitu hivyo vitakapoharibiwa, kwa kawaida vinapaswa kuharibiwa. Vifaa vya ujenzi na vifaa vya ujenzi pia ni mahali pazuri pa kukua kwa kuvu. Kwa hiyo, kwa kawaida vifaa vya ujenzi lazima viondolewe na kubadilishwa, jambo ambalo ni ghali sana. Kwa sababu ya kesi nyingi za kuvu na hukumu kubwa, makampuni ya bima yamebadilisha chanjo zao na ama kutengwa madai ya kuvu au kutoa mipaka ndogo tu kwa madai ya kuvu. Chama cha California cha Realtors kiliunda ufunuo wa ukungu ambao kila mnunuzi hupokea wakati wa shughuli ya ununuzi, akielezea kwamba ukungu unaweza kutokea ambapo kuna uvamizi wa maji, na wanunuzi wanashauriwa kupata vipimo vya ukungu ikiwa wanajifunza juu ya uvamizi wa maji wa zamani. Baadhi ya kuvu haziwezi kuonekana (zaweza kuwa nyuma ya drywall, katika zulia au chini ya sakafu) na kwa hiyo sampuli ya hewa lazima kufanyika kugundua kuvu spores katika hewa. Kwa sasa hakuna serikali (kama vile Shirika la Ulinzi wa Mazingira) au viwango vya sekta ambavyo vinaelezea viwango vinavyoruhusiwa au vinavyokubalika vya kuvu za ndani, za hewa. EPA imetoa mwongozo wa miongozo kwa miradi ya kurekebisha ukungu, ambayo hutoa miongozo ya jumla ya tathmini na kukabiliana na tatizo la ukungu wa ndani. Kwa sababu ya ukosefu huo wa uhakika wa kisayansi, mara nyingi kesi za kuendesha kesi za kuambukiza kuvu hutegemea ushuhuda wa mashahidi wa kitaalamu. Uwezo wa mwombaji, kwa upande mmoja, kuanzisha uhusiano kati ya majeraha ya madai na aina maalum ya kuvu, na mtaalamu wa ulinzi kukataa uhusiano huo, itabainisha jinsi kesi inaendelea. Katika visa fulani, mahakimu hawaruhusu ushuhuda wa mwombaji bila kusikilizwa kwa awali kuanzisha ushahidi thabiti wa matibabu wa uhusiano huo. "Mfano wa ""Daubert"" unatokana na uamuzi wa 1992 wa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani katika kesi ya Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ambayo ilisema kwamba maoni yoyote ya matibabu au ya kisayansi lazima yakaguliwa na hakimu kama ""mlinzi wa mlango"" ili kuamua ikiwa ushahidi unakubaliwa." Kwa kuongezea kuthibitisha kuwepo kwa ukungu, walalamikaji lazima kuthibitisha mlolongo wa ulinzi kati ya kampuni ya upimaji na matokeo ya upimaji. Kampuni ya kupima mazingira au maabara lazima ifanye sampuli ya kuvu katika eneo linalodhaniwa kuwa limechafuliwa wakati wa mfiduo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""kuna uhusiano wa kuonekana kwa ukungu wakati mshtakiwa alipohusika (kwa mfano, ikiwa madai yanahusisha uuzaji, kwamba ukungu ulikuwepo katika muundo kabla ya uuzaji).""" Vizuizi vya kuwa na vifaa vya kupima na maabara vilivyothibitishwa vizuri, uhusiano wa kimwili kati ya eneo lililoharibiwa na mwombaji aliyefunuliwa, na uhusiano na mwenendo usiofaa wa mshtakiwa ni changamoto kubwa. "Mwanasheria huyo alidai kwamba ""ushuhuda wa wataalamu wa mwombaji haujathibitishwa kisayansi, ambayo ni uwezekano halisi kwa kuzingatia ukosefu wa makubaliano ya kisayansi kuhusu sumu ya kuvu na mbinu ya kutiliwa shaka inayotumiwa na makampuni mengi ya sampuli ya mazingira.""" Ni muhimu kuzingatia uvamizi wowote wa maji kama hatari. Wamiliki wa mali (wauzaji) na wasimamizi wa mali lazima pia waelewe jinsi ya kutibu maeneo yaliyoambukizwa kuvu mara tu yanapogunduliwa. Ikiwa kesi ya kisheria inatokea, kwa kawaida ni ndefu na ya gharama kubwa, lakini licha ya hukumu kubwa, mbinu ya kupima na sababu ni ngumu kuthibitisha.