|
, 706 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.,
1997)
Summary: Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed a verdict for
the plaintiff in a case alleging that construction defects in the
Martin County courthouse caused moisture problems, resulting in
extensive mold growth. The county sued the construction company for
breach of contract. Most important, the court determined that
expert testimony linking mold exposure to health problems was
admissible at trial.
,
No. 95C-05-074-HLA, 1999 WL 753916 (Del. Super. Ct. May 11,
1999)
Summary: Delaware Superior Court affirmed a jury's verdict for the
plaintiffs in a case alleging that a landlord's failure to properly
and promptly repair leaks led to tenants' mold-related health
problems.
, No.
184844 (Va., Fairfax County Cir. Ct. Sept 29, 2000)
Summary: A jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, found a construction
company liable for mold that contaminated at least 21 homes in a
subdivision. The plaintiffs alleged that the company had misled
them into thinking that it had used real stucco--a mix of cement,
sand, and lime--on the exterior of the home. Instead, it had used
synthetic stucco, a layering of foam, fiberglass mesh, and acrylic
finish that allows water to seep into walls, decay wood, and foster
the growth of mold. The jury found that the defendant committed
fraud by misrepresenting the stucco, violated a state consumer
protection act, and breached its sales contract. See also Stafford
v. County Developers, *17 No. 181455 (Va., Fairfax County Cir. Ct.
July 18, 2001).
, No.
99-05252 (Tex., Travis County Dist. Ct. June 1, 2001)
Summary: Texas jury awarded substantial damages to a couple who
sued their insurer over a bathroom plumbing leak that mushroomed
into a toxic-mold infestation. Plaintiffs alleged serious health
problems-- including bleeding lungs, neurological damage, asthma,
and fatigue--caused by mold that grew in their home. Soon after the
leak was repaired, plaintiffs noticed that their hardwood floors
had buckled. They filed a claim with Fire Insurance Exchange, a
subsidiary of Farmers Insurance Group. A contractor told the
insurer that mold could grow in the subfloor, which had been
damaged by the plumbing leak, and that it should be replaced.
Farmers did not pay the claim. The mold spread throughout the home
and the family's health deteriorated. Farmers eventually offered a
settlement that, if accepted, would not have covered the cost of
repairs. Plaintiffs hired an air-quality company that detected
severe toxic- mold contamination and urged them to leave their home
immediately. The couple alerted Farmers to the findings. Again, the
insurer did nothing to remedy the problem. The homeowners filed
suit, claiming that the insurance company acted fraudulently in
dealing with the leak and the mold damage. A jury awarded
compensatory damages for the economic loss and mental anguish, plus
punitive damages.
, 2001
WL 1451050 (Iowa App.)
Summary: Plaintiff's property suffered roof damage due to storm, a
claim was subsequently filed under his home owner's policy. The
original claim was paid by the carrier but the supplemental claim
for mold and mildew damage was denied as the carrier determined
that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate
damages by tarping or otherwise covering the roof. There was a
storm during the period of time when the roof and the property was
open to the elements. The covering then placed on the roof for the
entire summer was a felt type of covering which apparently left the
property somewhat exposed to the elements. The plaintiff had not
made consistent efforts to regulate the temperature and humidity
levels in the property throughout the summer. The jury found for
the plaintiff on the breach of contract claim awarding him $59,190.
The court entered a directed verdict for the carrier on the bad
faith failure to settle the claim. Directed verdict upheld on
appeal.
|
