Mold and the Law

For all the damage and harm to health that mold can inflict, we cannot forget that it is merely a component of nature, like a weather disaster or an animal encounter.  Thus, it would be ridiculous to consider outlawing mold or taking it to court.  However, the spreading of mold in a home or building is most often due to neglect by a particular party, be it the property owner, the landlord, the employer, or other person whose responsibility it is somehow to keep the location safe for its occupants.  Consequently, legal liability for mold contamination is emerging as an area that is ripe for compensatory claims and punitive action.  Apparently, there exist many different causes of action that can be lodged against a party by victims of a mold contamination, in order to obtain adequate relief. 

Negligence is the most common claim made in mold liability litigation, and is typically directed at the person charged with maintaining the integrity of the building.  Another cause of action is strict liability, which is raised against builders of new homes, who are supposed to warrant the safety of a house, free from apparent or hidden defects, when they turn it over to a buyer.  A landlord may be sued for constructive eviction, presumably for facilitating or allowing conditions in a building that would force a tenant to leave the premises indefinitely.  Breach of contract encompasses a whole gauntlet of unfulfilled obligations, all of which boil down to an assurance that one would not have to suffer the adverse consequences of mold contamination.  Worker’s compensation can be filed by an employee who succumbed to a mold-related illness in the workplace, when the employer did not take adequate measures to avoid an infestation.  Lastly, lawsuits can be lodged using violation of federal and state air pollution and indoor air quality laws. 

Just because a cause of action can be raised, however, does not necessarily mean that it will prevail.  Scientific research has not clearly established causal links between mold and the ailments that are normally raised by plaintiffs in personal injury litigation.  Also, the nature of mold illnesses is that they are typically less damaging and permanent than other toxins, such as asbestos.  Moreover, federal and state regulations regarding air pollution have not yet been able to quantitatively set safe or unsafe levels of mold, so it can be hard to accuse a defendant of falling below a standard if there is no certain parameter to follow.  Lastly, since mold is a natural and organic substance whose behaviour can be erratic, it will often be a case for unforeseen and inevitable circumstances, which negate liability. 

Recent verdicts have been released awarding millions of dollars in damages for personal injuries caused by mold, but these should be looked upon as exceptional, and not meant to start a precedent.  To head off a litigation boom and the frivolous lawsuits that it will surely encourage, various groups that have the most to lose, such as insurance companies and real estate developers, are including clauses in their contracts that specifically exclude mold, or pass the burden of mold cleanup and remediation to the occupants. 

Return to Mold Removal Guide Main Page

Text copyright 2010 MoldRemovalGuru.com and may not be reproduced without consent. This is not the official web page of any of the products or places listed on this site, this is a review page created by an individual. Consult your doctor before beginning any treatment.