Mould
News In Canada
Is
Toxic Mould Making You Sick?
by Janice and George
Mucalov
With
the growing awareness of the health problems associated with mould in homes
and buildings, more people are starting to sue - and win.
Over
100,000 species of moulds exist; most people aren't affected by them. But
when mould spores get wet, they can reproduce and grow, causing some people
to suffer nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, coughing and other allergy-like
symptoms.
One
particularly nasty mould - the black-coloured Stachybotrys chartarum
sometimes found inside wet walls - is linked to headaches, sore throat, nose
bleeds, flu symptoms, fatigue, skin irritation, diarrhea and hair loss, some
of which may be permanent.
Problems occur when a leaky roof, faulty plumbing or sewer backup allows
moisture to seep inside a home or building, providing the perfect
environment for mould to proliferate. Drywall, carpets, wood floors and
ceiling tiles are all common contaminants if they get wet.
This
has led to an explosion of mould lawsuits, especially in the U.S.
In one
notorious case, a Texas insurer was ordered to pay $32 million for failing
to properly fix a family's toxic mould problem. As a result of a plumbing
leak, mould had grown in the hardwood floors of their 22-room dream home,
causing the mother and three-year-old son to cough up blood and making the
father so sick he had to leave his job as an investment banker.
Erin
Brockovich - made famous by the recent Julia Roberts movie - is even
reported to have sued the actor Tom Selleck's brother over a home she bought
from him, which she claims was poorly built, leading to mould that has
caused her health problems.
In
Canada, toxic mould cases are relatively new. But they're coming.
A $2
billion lawsuit was recently started against the Dufferin Peel Catholic
District School Board outside of
Toronto,
claiming that school children were getting sick from mould exposure in
portable classrooms. More suits are likely to follow with the closure of the
historic Alberta Court of Appeal building in
Calgary
after toxic mould was found, leading to respiratory problems among judges
and staff.
Here
in BC, the issue of mould has already been raised in at least one leaky
condo case.
If
you're unlucky enough to suffer a mould infestation, your losses can be
quite substantial. Quite apart from the health problems and any loss of
income that may cause, there are potentially hefty repair and clean-up costs
(improper handling can make a mould problem worse, so it's sometimes cheaper
and more effective to demolish a building and rebuild it completely rather
than trying to decontaminate it).
Mould
lawsuits also aren't cheap. Testing by engineers and perhaps microbiologists
may be needed to determine the cause and extent of the mould; reports from
doctors and/or occupational health specialists are also likely to be
required. Still, if you're affected, the benefits of litigation may outweigh
the costs.
Who is
liable if mould is making you sick?
Landlords have a duty to maintain their property to a reasonable standard,
so tenants may be able to look to their landlord. If indoor mould is bad
enough to affect your health, the building may be unfit to live in. The
landlord could also be held responsible for any health problems you suffer
if reasonable steps aren't taken to prevent the harm.
Sellers and their agents may also be on the hook if they sell a home without
disclosing a potential mould problem - they may well have a duty to disclose
hazardous conditions known to exist in their property.
And
construction contractors, designers and past owners of a home or building
may all be liable for any construction defects resulting in a mould
infestation.
Insurers are likely to be the hardest hit. A landlord, homeowner or
construction contractor who is sued would immediately ask their insurers to
defend the claim. Depending on the policy, the insurers are the ones who
often ultimately end up paying.
In
light of recent developments, landlords, homeowners, architects, contractors
and others potentially at risk would be wise to address any potential mould
problems now to avoid being sued in the first place.
Mould worries real estate sector
Industry facing more claims over
damage
related to sometimes-deadly spores
By ALBERT WARSON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Tuesday, January 21, 2003 – Print Edition, Page B14
Invisible mould spores
drifting freely in and out of commercial buildings, public institutions and
homes are the latest problem to strike the real estate industry.
They have been responsible
for billions of dollars in property damage and lawsuits in the United
States, and cases in Canada are becoming more common. The spores can make
people sick and even kill vulnerable patients in hospitals. And they can
lurk anywhere, unlike that other costly menace, asbestos, which is visible
and contained within specific building materials.
In the United States, the
number of mould claims has exploded in recent years.
One major insurer in Texas
reported 12 claims involving mould issues in 1999, 499 the following year
and 10,000 in 2001.
In Canada, hospitals,
school boards, provincial governments, contractors, developers and building
managers are gearing up to combat mould.
Mould, as primordial as its
fungi family, thrives in either wet, humid places or dusty environments.
Toxic mould, as the most dangerous strains are called, can establish
"colonies" within 24 hours.
Mould grows rapidly, like
its mushroom cousins, but unlike mushrooms, the spores or seeds that
perpetuate the species can be dispersed throughout almost any building --
including hospitals.
In July, 2001, Health
Canada issued procedural standards intended to prevent the spread of
construction-related infections in health care facilities. It also
identified 242 cases of infections -- which claimed dozens of patients'
lives -- related to construction or renovations inside or adjacent to
Canadian and U.S. hospitals between 1978 and 1998.
Hospitals are the worst
place for mould to grow, says Bruce Stewart, senior vice-president of
Pinchin Environmental Ltd., a consulting firm based in Mississauga. That's
because patients with immune systems compromised by medication and treatment
might inhale mould spores disturbed by construction and develop
life-threatening or fatal fungal infections.
"Buildings accumulate
ambient dust on ceiling tiles, inside air ducts and wall cavities," he says.
"Dust particles blown in and out of buildings always include mould spores."
Mr. Stewart can verify that
mould awareness is growing. Pinchin now takes on about 500 mould-related
testing and cleanup jobs a year involving all types of buildings in Ontario
and Manitoba. Three years ago it handled only 100 cases. The figures don't
include similar work by affiliated companies in the other provinces.
Glenn Gibson, chief
executive officer of Crawford Adjusters Canada, the Mississauga-based
subsidiary of a U.S. insurance services company, says he was "shocked" last
year to learn the extent of mould litigation in Canada. While speaking to
120 commercial and residential claims and property managers in Toronto about
toxic mould claims, he asked how many audience members had a claim in
progress. About three-quarters of them raised their hands.
Last May, a committee of
the Insurance Bureau of Canada, a national insurance industry trade
association, recommended that insurers tighten up wording in their policies
concerning mould-related damage or injury. It noted that skyrocketing claims
in the United States, mainly involving water and flood damages to
residences, could spill into Canada.
"The insurance industry
does not want to provide coverage for maintenance type issues, like
continuous leakage," says Dave Way, co-ordinator of the IBC's standards and
practices committee. "Damage has to be sudden and accidental, like a sewer
backup."
Meanwhile, the Ottawa-based
Canadian Construction Association is expecting a report this spring from a
task force it set up to study the liability implications of mould for
contractors. Jeff Morrison, the CCA's director of communications, says the
task force will also create guidelines on how to minimize mould in new
construction and clean away old mould during renovations.
All this attention has been
stirred up by media coverage over the past few years of throat and eye
irritations, stomach disorders, headaches, occupational asthma and other
respiratory ailments allegedly caused by poor indoor air quality or "sick
building syndrome."
Since 1995, the Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia governments have developed
guidelines for the detection and elimination of potentially hazardous mould.
Elimination could mean anything from drying out and cleaning contaminated
areas to replacing walls, ceilings and leaking roofs, to gutting an interior
to demolition.
School portables are
especially troublesome, Mr. Stewart says, because they aren't efficiently
ventilated or drained, are usually situated on damp soil and have structural
divisions with openings that support mould "colonies." Those colonies can
feed on just about any material except hard surfaces, such as steel and
glass.
In 1999, a couple launched
a $20-million lawsuit against the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School
Board in Ontario on behalf of their daughter, alleging health problems
resulting from mould in a relocatable classroom module. It fizzled in court,
but the high-profile uproar persuaded the provincial government to cover the
cost of building environmentally safe schools to replace the portables,
school board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said.
Getting rid of mould is
costly -- the Ontario government spent $40-million to clean up school
buildings in 2000 and $19-million during 2001-02 to rip apart most of a
Newmarket courthouse.
Ontario Realty Corp., which
manages the province's real estate assets, increased spending from
$71-million on mould-related repairs and maintenance at government buildings
to an estimated $91.8-million over a three-year period ending March 31,
2003, said Karen Raz, an ORC spokeswoman.
ORC has tackled mould
problems in police stations, courthouses, jails and government office
buildings across the province since 2000.
Mould lurking in office
towers is most likely to be found in class B and C buildings, rather than in
class A buildings, where maintenance programs --monitoring air quality and
routine inspections for hidden mould growth -- tend to be more thorough,
says François Dépelteau, president and CEO of Montreal-based Alizé Building
Technologies.
Alizé manages technical
operations and maintenance for 230 commercial properties in Quebec
encompassing 25 million square feet. "Preventive maintenance and interior
air quality monitoring in line with industry standards and inspections of
areas where moisture can accumulate are necessary to stop mould
proliferation and other types of contamination," he says.
Ian Stewart, Toronto
chapter president of the Building Owners and Managers Association, recalls
only five cases in that city where mould was removed from high-rise office
towers.
Association members, who
own and manage buildings, recognize that buildings should be designed to
provide adequate dehumidification, cooling, heating and ventilation, and
they make sure those are constantly maintained, he says.
SOURCES:
http://www.hgelaw.com/publications/vansun/toxic_mould.htm
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20030121/PRmould
More mould news
at:
Up | Mould In News | More News | Mould News in Canada | Home Builder Mould | Mould-Worries-Real-Estate-Sectors | Baby-Breathing-Problem
|
