The information in the following article is very timely and is reprinted with permission of the Idaho Real Estate Commission.
- TOXIC MOLD
Lead paint, asbestos insulation, EMFs, radon gas. Now there is a new member in the pantheon of potential health hazards which real estate sellers and their agents must know about and disclose:
TOXIC MOLD.
History:
As long as civilization has existed, molds and fungi have presented health hazards to humans. There is even mention of such in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. As societies have evolved, man has largely learned to live with the fungus among us (sorry about the pun). In fact, man has learned to benefit from the presence of many kinds of environmental fungus and mold. (Think: Portabella mushrooms, yeast, blue cheese and Penicillin.) However, some types of mold and fungi do not necessarily grace us with their presence. (Think: furry leftover Superbowl bean dip and dormitory shower floors) and some are downright dangerous. (Think: Legionnaire’s disease.)
Basic Biology:
Molds are just one kind of fungi. Fungi exist in just about every location on earth. Fungi exist for the purpose of breaking down organic matter to be “recycled” by plants and animals. In the process of breaking down organic matter, some fungi produce mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are poisonous substances that can be inhaled or ingested by humans. Mycotoxins can cause allergies, respiratory inflammation, and even infections. There are many such compounds referred to as mycotoxins.
Mycotoxins vary in how dangerous they are to humans. Myotoxins are dangerous to larger organisms (like humans) not because they specifically target them, but rather because the large organisms inadvertently serve as hosts for a mycotoxin-producing mold which are in competition with other molds for the same ecological niche. As the molds compete, reproduce and grow, the volume of mycotoxins increases. The higher the volume of mycotoxins, the greater the risk to hosts and bystanders.
The first recognition of the health implications of mycotoxins occurred in Russia and parts of Eastern Europe. Agricultural workers there handling wet hay and grains found that they suffered a variety of common health symptoms not shared by their city dwelling contemporaries. Researchers concluded that exposure to mold in various grain stores (principally wheat and corn) were responsible for illnesses in many farm and food production workers.
In the early 1990s, the EPA began its first scientific studies of the properties of various environmental molds and fungi. These studies formed the groundwork for more advanced and detailed studies of toxic and allergenic mold and fungi species. Most of these studies seem to indicate that only a small number of molds and fungi are considered “toxic.” Several of those, however, are very widespread and very dangerous.
The alpha male of toxic mold is Stachybotrys Chartarum (atras) (SC). This is a greenish-black fungus that is found throughout the world, most commonly in high humidity areas. SC thrives in damp environments which are high in cellulose and low in nitrogen (Think: wet carpet, wallpaper, thermal insulation, fiberboard, paper, straw, etc.). Ordinarily SC does not grow on surfaces such as plastic, vinyl or ceramic tiles (it’s not the same greenish black mold which forms on bread or shower tiles).
SC is particularly problematic because of its propensity to create multiple toxic chemicals (mycotoxins) as well as toxic spores that are easily inhaled, ingested or assimilated through the skin. SC has a nasty habit of growing and prospering in building ventilation systems which allows it to spread rapidly to multiple host locations.
Thus far, the EPA has set no strict regulations or guidelines for ascertaining the level of health risks associated with SC. However, SC has been linked by the Center for Disease Control to numerous illnesses including a lung disorder causing acute pulmonary hemorrhage in infants.
While severe health consequences can result from exposure to SC, the more common problems in adults include mild to moderate allergy-like symptoms: coughing, wheezing, runny nose, irritation of the eyes or throat, skin rashes and the like. Many of these symptoms are also associated with other known allergies. Therefore, it is often difficult to ascertain a clear causal relationship between the symptoms and the presence of mold. This is further complicated by the fact that toxic mold (like SC) is difficult to test for because its presence is often confused with other nontoxic varieties. (Remember this stuff is everywhere.)
Many of the more recent medical studies have focused on the similarities between common allergy symptoms and symptoms caused by exposure to mold. So called cluster studies have sought to define the relationship between groups (clusters) of similar illnesses and common sources of exposure to the suspected cause. For example, if multiple people on the 5th floor of the ACME building begin suffering the same or similar ill health symptoms, the cause could be viral, infectious, or could be common exposure to toxic mold. These symptomatological experiences have been generically lumped together under the euphemism “Sick Building Syndrome” (SBS).
Nice name, but it misses the obvious point: The building isn’t sick, the people in it are.
Litigation:
Toxic mold exposure and “sick building” claims have become the hot issue in real estate related tort litigation over the past five years.
Consider the following examples:
In 1999 an elementary school in Baytown, Texas had to be demolished after numerous complaints of sick building syndrome which resulted in lawsuits against the district by students and staff. Engineers concluded that the symptoms causing mold was so pervasive in the building that decontamination was not possible.
In May 2001, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld a 1.04 million dollar award to two women whose landlord failed to repair leaking pipes and the associated mold problems in their apartments. The women claimed the mold caused them to suffer asthma attacks and other related health problems.
In June 2001, a Texas jury awarded $32 million to a couple whose home in (I’m not making this up) Dripping Springs, Texas, became a veritable greenhouse of stachybotrys after a water line ruptured and flooded the 22-room mansion. (Their homeowners’ insurer, Farmers Insurance Exchange, refused to pay for the mold cleanup so the jury gave Farmers a little incentive.) In that case the homeowner alleged that neurological damage caused by mold exposure forced him to leave his career as an investment banker. (Of course, with a $32 million judgment; who needs to work?)
In October 2001, a homeowners association in Ventura, California settled for $1.3 million against a residential construction company after association members claimed injury arising from toxic mold which was undisclosed by builders and contractors who had formed the association.
In 2000, a U.S. District Court jury in (where else?) California awarded $18 million to a homeowner who sued her insurance company when it declined coverage for the cleanup of mold in her home. Seventeen and one-half of that was for punitive damages.
Not to be out done, even Erin Brockovich (the real one; not Julia Roberts) claims that toxic mold in her Agoura Hills, California, home cost her her health and most of the multi-million dollar bonus she received for her role in the famous chromium-6 water contamination suit against Pacific Gas & Electric. (I’m guessing another lawsuit might just be in the works; maybe another movie too!)
Maintaining its place on the vanguard of all new tort litigation, the state of California has seen some of the bigger verdicts involving toxic mold. Partially in response to these lawsuits and the media frenzy associated with them, the California legislature recently undertook the nation’s first state-level effort to legislate mold exposure limits, mold mitigation efforts, and a mold complaint system. California’s proposed “Toxic Mold Protection Act” (if passed) will create a division within the State Department of Health Services to adopt mold exposure limits, identification standards, remediation rules, and public and private disclosure requirements. In anticipation of the Act’s likely passage, the California Association of Realtors? has already begun using mold disclosure forms and is disseminating informational brochures describing potential health risks associated with mold.
Closer to home, the Idaho Association of Realtors? has created its own “Mold Task Force” to study and address this emerging issue. The Mold Task Force is presently awaiting issuance of the National Association of Realtors?’ formal report and recommendation on the issue. The Task Force intends to work with the Idaho Building Contractors Association to seek a cooperative recommendation regarding disclosure. It’s safe to assume that the ubiquitous Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure reports will soon be amended again.
In the meantime, there are ample resources to help you stay abreast of the issue, including your state and local Association of Realtors? (www.idahorealtors.com; (800) 621-7553 ), various internet locations and websites (www.toxic-mold-tort-news-online.com or www.moldinspector.com), as well as private publications. (Mold Buster Tips; Mold Inspector, L.L.T., 65 N. 3700 West St. Hurricane, UT 84737, or Mold: Insurance Coverage Litigation 1996- 2001, Mealey Publications; (800) MEALEYS).
Lagging characteristically behind, the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far issued only limited information although a published guide called, “Mold Remediation in Schools And Commercial Buildings.” Stay tuned.
Until next time,
Glenn Sather
