Archive for the “legal” Category
Detroit Metro Tower Controllers Sue Over Toxic Black Mold
September 17, 2007, 6:39 amMold in the workplace is an all to common tragedy. People being exposed without any choice on the matter given their need to earn a living. And from the news we’ve seen, any type of workplace can be vulnerable, including this article from the publication charterX regarding Detroit’s Wayne County Airport:
On Sept. 14, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said that controllers of the Detroit Metro Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that toxic black mold has affected controllers’ health. According to the complaint, the problem goes back three years; controllers say black mold has caused sickness and many of them have haven’t been able to work–continuing to suffer breathing and other serious health problems. To refresh your memory of several health-related complaints made by NATCA facility representatives, refer to CharterX’s exclusive May report, “Deadly Fumes in ATC Towers: FAA Promises CO Detectors.”
Allegations made in the suit contend that contractors hired by the Federal Aviation Administration, which employ air traffic controllers, failed to properly remove mold, provide a work plan for effective removal of mold contamination, have a certified industrial hygienist present during remediation, conduct proper testing, including clearance testing, and to advise the FAA of the deficiencies in their efforts to remediate the mold. Further, the complaint contends that mold remains in the building today. According to FAA statements, the agency contends mold has been removed.
Parties named in the suit are MIS Corporation, Coach’s Catastrophic Cleaning & Restoration Services Inc., Tillotson Environmental Occupational Consulting, Clayton Environmental Consultants, Bureau Veritas North American Inc., Jacobs Facilities Inc., Safe Technology Inc. and Applied Environmental Inc. Law firms of Dodd B. Fisher, PLC, of Grosse Pointe, Mich., and Mancini, Schreuder, Kline & Conrad, P.C., of Warren, Mich., are representing the air traffic controllers.
According to Vince Sugent, Detroit tower NATCA facility representative, the problem began in January 2005, when efforts to remove mold and correct a moisture problem in the tower weren’t handled properly. Controllers allege that contractors’ actions in wiping down drywall with soap and water–not utilizing safety precautions to protect controllers during remediation and executing other work plans outside the scope of industry standards, protocols and guidelines–haven’t corrected the problems.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Closure Of Tampa Traffic Court With Mold Affects Dozens
September 11, 2007, 12:23 pmThis article from the Tampa Tribune illustrates the dangers of mold infestation in public spaces especially the ones that most of us would rather not be:
TAMPA - Dozens of people, expecting the typical long waits and aggravation, showed up this morning for traffic court at the Floriland Business Center. For some, the closure of the facility last week due to a mold problem added to their aggravation. For others, it was a relief.
Douglas Bakke, an official with the Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts, said 25 to 35 people showed up for their 9 a.m. court hearing.
“They’re tickled pink when we tell them court is canceled,” Bakke said.
Another 75 people had shown up by about 9:30 a.m. expecting to set a court date or pay a fine. They were directed to satellite offices in Ruskin, Brandon and Plant City or to a temporary facility set up at the George Edgecomb Courthouse in downtown Tampa.
Court dates in Plant City will proceed as normal. The majority of Hillsborough County Traffic Court dates that are scheduled at Floriland are canceled for this week, Bakke said.
The mold found in the courtrooms last week will take a minimum of 30 days to clean up, Bakke said.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Renters lobby for laws on mold
August 1, 2007, 11:35 amAs awareness around the health effects of mold increases, more people will organize themselves to protect their rights. Illustrating this is a story from Olympia Washington:
“The pain starts right here,” Nicole said, gesturing to her upper chest, “and it moves down to the left side and it grows down to the other side.”
A next-door neighbor, 8-year-old Scott Thom, also felt bad. He said he couldn’t bicycle around the doublewide trailer in which he lived without feeling tired.
“He had a 102 fever for two days. He was not eating; every time he ate, he started hurting,” said his mother, Holly Thom.
The problems were a mystery for the mothers until Kennedy smelled something. She pulled Nicole’s bed away from the wall and found mold growing on the wall.
Thom inspected her trailer and also found mold, which both women blamed on leaky roofs in their rented homes.
Mold is a complex issue, both in its effects on people and in the government’s ability to clamp down on affected buildings.
When Kennedy tried to call and complain about the state of the rented trailers, she said she was “bounced around all over the place,” until the Thurston County Department of Health said mold wasn’t something that health codes cover.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
American Mold Guard, Inc. charged for violating federal pesticide laws
June 22, 2007, 9:18 amLos Angeles, CA: (Jun-14-07) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), charged American Mold Guard, Inc., a San Juan Capistrano, CA mold prevention company, for allegedly violating federal pesticide laws. The EPA conducted an investigation that revealed that the company, had been repackaging AMG-X40, a registered pesticide, into 2 oz. containers, and distributing them as samples to customers who received its mold prevention services. The samples were missing most of the pesticide’s required labeling, including warnings against skin contact and first aid directions in case skin contact occurred. Federal laws state that producers, sellers, and distributors must ensure that pesticides are labeled with an EPA Registration Number, an EPA Establishment Number that identifies the production facility, information concerning the producer, directions for use and other safety information necessary to protect consumers and the environment.
As part o the settlement reached, American Mold Guard agreed to pay $11,700 to resolve alleged violations. This action was based on a December 2006 inspection conducted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation at the EPA’s request. [EPA: PESTICIDE SAMPLES]
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/pesticide-samples.html
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Mold house saga ends in settlement
June 10, 2007, 9:16 amROY - The woman who claims she was duped into buying a mold-tainted home in Brunswick three years ago that led to her financial ruin will get a settlement of $23,000.
An attorney who represents the Realtor for the seller of the house in a lawsuit filed by Kristine Choma, the buyer, said Friday a $23,000 settlement in the case was offered and accepted. David Gruenberg, an attorney who represents Kenneth Yearsley of Pittstown, who acted as a Realtor for two relatives who sold 6 Magill Ave. to Choma, said his client agreed to pay $1,000 toward the settlement but won’t admit wrongdoing.
A Department of State spokesman said this week Yearsley’s license could be revoked after as a result of a hearing July 16.
“The case settled. I settled this for quality of life,” Choma said two hours after the hearing, adding she was advised by her lawyer, Aaron Conner, not to disclose details of the agreement to the media. A call placed to Conner Friday was not returned.
“There was a total settlement of $23,000. My client, Kenneth Yearsley, agreed to pay $1,000 of that amount. That was not out of an admission of liability or wrongdoing on Mr. Yearsley’s part, but simply to avoid the ongoing cost of litigation, which we would have incurred,” Gruenberg said.
Choma has estimated the debacle probably cost her about twice the $105,000 she paid for the home, including the cost of furniture and other property she abandoned along with the home after these items became contaminated with toxic mold spores.
According to Gruenberg, Yearsley’s former broker, Kathleen Weeks, agreed through her lawyer to pay $2,000, while Capitol Home Inspections LLC agreed to pay $5,000. The insurance carriers of two policies held by Thomas and Nicole Yearsley, who sold the house to Choma, agreed to pay $15,000 according to Gruenberg.
http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18453338&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=7021&rfi=6
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
You’ve got mold
March 12, 2007, 11:02 amHere’s an article from a Student publication at Colorado University at Boulder. Often students seek out affordable housing due to the simultaneous factors of high tuition costs and low income. Here’s a quote:
Make sure you’re not getting into a moldy situation when pre-leasing for fall. The black fuzzy fungus, otherwise known as mold, is something to watch out for when renting.
Not only is mold unsightly, but also it is harmful to our health. Mold spores become harmful when inhaled and can lead to nasal congestion, eye irritation and wheezing or skin irritation. Even memory loss can occur if you are exposed to mold for a long period of time.
Mold is common in Boulder. Joe Boatman with Quality Environmental Services said he does at least five to ten inspections for mold every week in Boulder. If a rental property is infested with mold it could take a long time to get rid of.
“There are a lot of mold problems and it can result in a couple of days to a couple of weeks of clean up,” Boatman said.
If renting a property that is infested with mold, the renter is not responsible for the mold clean up. When renting a house or an apartment in Boulder, contamination of mold is considered a breach of the lease. Maria Massaro, a real estate attorney, said it is considered constructive eviction.
“The contract with a landlord is considered breach, because you cannot live in a harmful environment,” Massaro said.
According to state law, the landlord is responsible for ensuring proper living conditions. This includes making sure the premises do not have any kind of mold contamination.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Separate lawsuits claim mold made renters sick
March 4, 2007, 9:08 amHere’s an example from an article in The Desert Sun of tennants going after a landlord/building owner after prolonged exposure to mold:
Two Palm Springs residents are suing their landlords for $2 million, claiming mold in their apartments made them sick.
Mary Akins says she lost months laying in bed, suffering from respiratory, intestinal and other issues caused by mold in her apartment at 1850 S. Camino Real.
Don Keating points to photos of mushrooms growing out of his ceiling and to health problems from mold in his apartment at 967 Camino Parocela.
An attorney for McLean Company Rentals in Palm Springs, Keating’s landlord, said Keating’s suit is similar to one he filed last year and lost.
And attorney Drew Hanker with Belmont Brokerage and Management in Long Beach, Akins’ landlord, said it’s too soon to comment.
Akins could not be reached Friday, but residents who lived in her apartment complex said she definitely has a case.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Better to be safe than sorry
February 27, 2007, 8:48 amHere’s a great blog post that includes a passage on how the author was able to take action upon realizing he had a mold situation. I think as more people become aware of the potential presence of mold you’ll see far more people being pro-active, if not preventative.
“Whoa, I can’t go down there. You’ve got standing water there for some reason,” he said. I looked where the beam of light fell, and sure enough, I could see the pools of standing water and mud. It was the middle of a bone-dry summer. The DirectTV installer ended up drilling a hole through the brick facade of the house, and pulling the cable through the wall. But before he left, he said something to me that ended up saving us a ton of money: “You ought to have that water looked at, buddy. There shouldn’t be standing water under your foundation.”
His comment stood out in the back of my mind. A few weeks later, I was talking to a friend from California, who is a realtor, and we were chatting about how business was going. She said something about how California insurers were having lots of problems these days with “black mold litigation”, which was having an effect on her ability to sell houses and get them insured. Hmm, I thought. Standing water. Black mold. Water + wood = mold. Maybe I should have this checked out.
To make a long story short, I decided to hire a building inspector, and he ended up finding that around 25% of our home’s pier-and-beam foundation had been rotted out, and that there was a large mold colony under the house. Somehow–and to this day I dont know how this happened–the original inspector hired by my wife had completely missed both the wood rot and the mold. (My wife, unlike me, isn’t particularly careful about these things, and she bought the house before we got married.) The lawyer in me went straight to work.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, General category)
Interview with lawyer David Pfeffer of Arent Fox
January 31, 2007, 9:27 amThis is a great interview from GlobeSt.com with a lawyer who does a lot of work around mold litigation.
If the upside of Green Building is such trophies as Manhattan’s Hearst Tower, the downside has got to be the dysfunctional environment, the space that fails to support proper health, well-being and productivity. David J. Pfeffer is a partner in the New York City-based law firm of Arent Fox, and his practice focuses largely on the construction industry, wherein he represents owners, design professionals and developers. Pfeffer says that with tens of thousands of mold-related cases out there, the issue is quite literally nothing to sneeze at, and the solution–uniform legislation based on scientific proof of a link between mold and health–is still far off. But he does have a fix for owners who want to protect themselves, and in an exclusive interview, he lays it out for us.
GlobeSt.com: What does it take to become an expert on mold?
Pfeffer: Well, it really takes the joining of several practices of law. When we’re talking about mold and mold-claim issues, we’re really looking at several different legal issues. One is personal-injury issues and how to handle someone claiming that they’ve become sick from mold. Number two is property-damage issues and what happens when someone says their property has been damaged because they have some sort of mold or water-infiltration. Number three is insurance. Mold and water-infiltration claims are really hot topics in the insurance arena, and there’s a lot of insurance language written into most property and casualty policies concerning this.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, Resources category)
Wall Street Journal Uncovers Medical Association’s Alleged Conflicts of Interest — Advocacy Groups Call for Senate Investigation
January 30, 2007, 9:00 amAdvocacy groups say they applied mathematical calculations to make the leap that human illness could not plausibly occur if one is exposed indoors. The leaders of ACOEM put their imprimatur on the statement. The insurance industry and its surrogates have since brandished it like the biblical jawbone of an ass. Advocacy Groups see this as an abuse of political clout and power that has harmed US Citizens.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 29, 2007 — After years of working together to enlighten the public of the serious illnesses caused by mold, advocacy groups are thankful to the Wall Street Journal for bringing the matter to greater light. Upon completing a six month investigation, veteran Wall Street Journal reporter, David Armstrong, wrote of the leaders of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, ACOEM, permitting a litigation defense corporation, Veritox Inc (aka GlobalTox Inc) to author the association’s policy paper regarding mold induced illnesses. The two Veritox authors were not prior members of the physician trade association. They are not physicians.
The Wall Street Journal article, Page One, January 9, 2007. “Amid Mold Suits, Experts Wear Two Hats” may be read at: online.wsj.com/article_print/SB116831654647871083.html -or-
www.ciphi.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6500&sid=000cd0970ddb9be8716b84ba3baf8f9c
The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine mold policy paper is at the heart of the contention over the Toxic Mold Issue. The paper claims to prove humans could not plausibly be exposed to enough mold toxins within a damp indoor environment to cause symptoms of ill health. “Highly unlikely at best, even among the most vulnerable of subpopulations” is what the non-physician authors wrote.
As referenced by the WSJ, to make this key finding, the authors borrowed data from one rodent study in which mold was forced into the trachea of rats. They then applied calculations to make the leap that human illness could not plausibly occur if one is exposed indoors. The leaders of ACOEM put their imprimatur on the statement. The insurance industry and its surrogates have since brandished it like the biblical jawbone of an ass. The finding carries much weight within the courts as it is portrayed to be the opinion of thousands of environmental physicians.
But the EPA and the Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces Committee, have both identified the technique used by ACOEM to make the key conclusion, as non-acceptable methodology for determining existence or absence of human illness from indoor mold toxin exposure. The finding represents an affront to anyone with rudimentary logic skills. It is a complete non sequitur, where the premise does not support the conclusion.
Since the ACOEM mold paper’s publication in November of 2002, it has saved worker’s compensation insurers, property insurers, general liability insurers and building stakeholders, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Insurance industry surrogates - the paid witnesses - including some ACOEM members themselves - and the lawyers, have earned millions in fees. Of more importance, the sick receive no medical treatment and no compensation for devastated lives and financial ruin.
(more…)
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, Resources, News category)
Mold Not Covered By Most Insurance Companies
January 2, 2007, 7:39 pmUnfortunately this is not an uncommon tale. A woman in central South Carolina is in the midst of a major mold problem and is not finding any help from her insurance company. It will take time and awareness to change this situation for everyone. Here’s a quote from the story:
A Blythewood woman says mold is growing inside her home, but her insurance policy does not cover mold removal.
“I didn’t know that anything was going wrong,” explained Frona Haddad, who says a plumber spotted mold growing underneath her home while fixing a burst pipe.
Haddad, who has limited mobility due to multiple sclerosis, says she began to notice mold growing inside her closet, black spots on her carpet, weak floor boards and an unusual cough coming from her cats. “Then I started to cough and sneeze,” said Haddad. “My voice was getting deeper, and I didn’t know what to do.”
Haddad says she filed a claim with Allstate; however, an agent informed her that mold was not covered under her policy. Haddad, who relies on a disability check, says she cannot afford to pay for the mold to be removed from her home.
“It’s important to realize that there are some things—they are few and far in between—that are not covered by the homeowner’s policy,” explained Larry Lucas, a State Farm Insurance Agent. “Mold, mildew, rot and long-term damage have always been excluded.”
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
State Politician to propose bill to regulate mold remediation
November 5, 2006, 10:49 pmThis strikes me as a great development. While we’re all against mold, and want to see it removed from our homes, there’s all sorts of tricksters preying upon as we do so. So kudos to Earl Carter, a George State Representative who’s trying to do something about it. To quote from the Savannah Morning News:
A Georgia state representative said Tuesday that he’s proposing a bill that will require anyone who practices microbial inspection and remediation to have a license, in hopes that mold remediation will become more safe and organized.
Earl L. ‘Buddy’ Carter, representative for House District 159, said the new bill, called the Microbial Professionals Licensing Act, will have to go through a lengthy process in order to be passed. If passed, the bill will set new statutes, including established standards for collecting, sampling, analysis and reporting of microbial contaminants.
“(Licensed) people can tell their customers, ‘I’ve been trained in the minimal amount of training, and I’m going to be held responsible for the work,’” Carter said. “It can cause physical problems and people have suffered because of it. We need to have some rules and regulations.”
The bill states, “…it is necessary in the interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to prevent damage to the real and personal property of the residents of this state and to avert economic injury to the residents of this state to regulate individuals that hold themselves out to the public as qualified to perform microbial assessments and microbial remediation.”
This bill is not a new concept, according to Carter. He said he proposed a similar bill last year, but it didn’t pass. Carter said he plans on submitting it again this year and hopes to do so on Nov. 15.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Insurance Lessons From Katrina
September 14, 2006, 4:33 pmThis is a rather wise story from WKRC Channel 12 in Cincinnati about some of the lessons people should be learning from the tragedies following Hurricane Katrina. To quote:
The insurance industry says only 40 percent of homeowners in New Orleans had flood insurance before hurricane Katrina. And almost 30 percent of home insurers in Ohio offer no mold coverage.
Paula Toti is looking at lessons learned from last year’s big hurricanes.
When your insurance policy comes due each year … check the coverage … make sure there haven’t been some changes in the fine print … like no more mold coverage … and remember flood insurance is never part of a standard policy.
So many people suffered huge loses after Hurricane Katrina that Congress is debating changing the National Flood Insurance Program … possibly making it tougher to rebuild on a flood plain for those who have now filed loss claims.
But if you ask those in the insurance industry … they’ll say the lesson from Katrina is that everyone should have flood insurance. It’s not cheap.
“My recollection .. For $100,000 in coverage about $300 - 400 a year.”
That coverage can be purchased through most insurance agents … but it’s actually issued by the government. And while most people in the Tri-State wouldn’t think of insuring their homes against an earthquake … at the Cincinnati Insurance Board they feel that’s a mistake.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Judgment for Builder Rendered in Mold Bodily Injury Lawsuit
September 8, 2006, 11:26 amThis is a controversial ruling regarding the health effects of household mold. Read on:
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ — Shea Homes was absolved of any liability for damages that a Stevenson Ranch family alleged had arisen out of mold exposure in their home. Jurors in the closely watched personal injury suit returned a defense verdict for Shea, the nation’s largest private home builder, following a three week trial. The family of three claimed a host of bodily injuries from exposure to mold while living in a single family home that Shea had constructed. Although homeowners have asserted many claims for mold-caused damages, few have reached trial and yielded verdicts.
In this case, the Achin family sought in excess of $20 million (reduced to $5 million at trial) for various personal injuries. Prior to trial, the court eliminated many of their claims, finding that the general medical community has rejected any link between household mold and injuries other than typical allergic reactions in otherwise healthy people. After trial, the jury returned its verdict that Shea was not negligent, made no misrepresentations of fact and did not cause any harm to plaintiffs. The jury further found that Shea acted reasonably in responding to the family’s initial warranty requests, and that the claims asserted were wholly unrelated to any actions of Shea. Several jurors commented post-trial that they thought Shea had done everything it could to work with the Achin family and avoid the litigation that transpired.
After the trial, several jurors expressed doubt with the plaintiffs’ claims, and found their actions to be highly suspicious. “The jurors expressed their doubts that a little mold in a wall cavity could cause the harm that plaintiffs claimed,” said defense attorney Dan Berman. Mr. Berman, a founding partner in the Los Angeles office of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman stated that, “This trial demonstrates that when all testimony comes into evidence, juries are able to separate the hype related to mold claims from reality.”
Les Thomas, President of Shea Homes Southern California stated, “We are gratified by the jury’s verdict. We would have preferred to have resolved this matter outside the court system, but we are prepared to defend the quality of our construction when necessary.”
West Hollywood lawyer Brian Witzer and Daniel Balaban represented the Achin family. Dan Berman and Stacey Blank represented Shea Homes Limited Partnership at trial, along with Patrick Schoenberg during the pre-trial motions.
Source: Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
$44.8 Billion in Profits for Insurance Companies! So where’s the money for the Katrina Victims of South Florida?
August 22, 2006, 8:46 pmMiami, FL–(HISPANIC PR WIRE)–August 21, 2006–The one-year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is this August 25th. The storm that left more than a million in the dark and billions of dollars in damages is still causing nightmares for South Floridians. Thousands of frustrated and angry policyholders are wondering when they will see the end of the blue tarps, the mold and the further deterioration to their homes and businesses.
Hispanics especially have felt the repercussions of the language barrier when dealing with their insurance companies. Marking the anniversary of Katrina’s landfall, Hispanic hurricane victims will have the opportunity of receiving Free Legal Advice from the Nations Leading Expert in Natural Disasters during a three day event at the Mall of the Americas.
“Justice After the Storms 2 “ as it is now known, is sponsored in part by many local community leaders and non profit organizations. Florida’s Blood Centers, South Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Project H.O.P.E, ACORN and many Spanish media partners alike have embraced this noble cause.
Alan Garfinkel founder of Garfinkel Trial Group, a frequent legal expert on the Network News circuit will bring his team of former insurance lawyers and case managers in an effort to help those who are still in dyer straits with their insurance company. Mr. Garfinkel, a civil lawyer who has devoted his legal career to Natural Disaster Relief has published numerous articles on insurance and has lectured extensively on Natural Disaster Law. He is admitted and qualified by the Supreme Court of the United States and was awarded the prestigious AV – Rating by Martindale – Hubbell, the world’s oldest lawyer rating publication.
Justice After the Storms 2
Location:
Mall of the Americas
7827 B. West Flagger St.
Miami, Florida 33144
Dates:
August 25, 26 & 27th (10:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m.), Sunday (11:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m.).
NOTE TO EDITORS: High-resolution images are available at: http://www.hispanicprwire.com/home.php?l=in
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Klinedinst Attorney Wins Real Estate Failure to Disclose Toxic Mold Case
August 3, 2006, 8:16 pmSanta Ana, CA (PRWeb) August 2, 2006 — Kevin J. Gramling, the managing shareholder in Klinedinst’s Santa Ana office, recently won a complex bench trial where the Plaintiffs alleged that the sellers of a condominium failed to disclose the presence of toxic mold.
Klinedinst represented a husband and wife who sold their Huntington Beach condominium to the Plaintiffs in November, 2004. Weeks after escrow closed, the Plaintiffs began experiencing water leaks and noticing water stains. The Plaintiffs hired construction and industrial hygienist experts to examine the problem. The experts concluded that two exterior decks and the condominium’s wood siding were indeed leaking and causing mold growth.
The Plaintiffs and their two minor children moved out of the condo in January, 2005. One child was hospitalized repeatedly for symptoms allegedly caused by exposure to toxic mold spores. The other Plaintiffs complained of symptoms frequently associated with mold exposure, including respiratory ailments, rashes, and fatigue.
Four months after purchasing the condo, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the sellers, their real estate agent, the homeowners association, the termite inspector and the home inspector. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for negligence, fraud, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation against the sellers. The Plaintiffs were seeking over $250,000 in damages from the sellers; all other parties settled prior to trial. The sellers denied experiencing leaks while living there, and denied covering up the water stains prior to completion of the real estate transaction.
Klinedinst attorneys were brought in to represent the sellers, and Kevin J. Gramling personally handled the case. Mr. Gramling has defended housing manufacturers, developers, mobile home park owners, apartment owners/managers, and commercial building owners in toxic tort litigation. Mr. Gramling’s experience in complex toxic mold trials, including a defense verdict in the first mold wrongful death case to go to trial, was recognized as being crucial for the defense, especially with allegations of health ailments involving minor children.
In June, 2006, the bench trial (bifurcated) began in Orange County Superior Court, with Judge Derek Hunt presiding. The Plaintiffs presented numerous experts to prove their case, including a general contractor and a certified industrial hygienist. Mr. Gramling, on behalf of the sellers, was able to cut through the myths involving toxic mold, and presented a clear, concise defense without calling any expert witnesses.
On June 29, 2006, a minute order was issued finding in favor of the Defendants on all causes of action. The Defendants will file a memorandum of costs, and a motion for attorneys fees to recoup nearly $60,000 in fees and costs.
The impact of this case could be far-reaching, especially in light of the incredible number of real estate transactions in California. There are still many myths that surround mold and other toxic torts, and we expect these failure to disclose lawsuits to continue in the future.
The case was Griffith et al. v. Nguyen et al. (Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05CC05122)
Klinedinst congratulates Kevin J. Gramling for his success in this contentious toxic mold case. For more information on Mr. Gramling and his qualifications, please visit:
www.klinedinstlaw.com/profiles/attorney/kevingramling/
About Klinedinst
Klinedinst PC has achieved the highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards by Martindale-Hubbell. We are a full service firm engaged in litigation and transactional law practice throughout the State of California, and serve our clients from offices in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. For more information about the firm, please visit our “About” section online at www.klinedinstlaw.com.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
Demand for Legal Nurse Consultants at All-Time High
July 22, 2006, 12:47 pmIn operating this website we’ve been learning a lot about what’s involved in getting justice or pursuing claims when it comes to mold infestation. This article from the American Chronicle talks about one type of expert that can lay a major role, legal nurse consultants.
What Is a Legal Nurse Consultant?A legal nurse consultant is a registered nurse who uses existing expertise as a healthcare professional plus specialized training to consult on medical-related cases at fees of $100-$150/hour. Few attorneys know how to read medical records or understand the terminology and subtleties of healthcare issues to achieve the best results for their clients. A legal nurse consultant bridges that gap in the attorney’s knowledge. While the attorney is the expert on legal issues, the legal nurse consultant is the expert on nursing, the healthcare system and its inner workings.
According to the Houston Chronicle, “Of the approximately 900,000* attorneys in practice today, 25 percent deal with medical malpractice and personal injury cases.” These attorneys rely on specially trained Certified Legal Nurse Consultants to help them win their cases.
* According to the American Bar Association Market Research Department, in 2005 there are 1,104,766 attorneys in the U.S.
Who are Legal Nurse Consultants?
Legal nurse consultants live all over the U.S., rural or urban. Legal nurse consultants have consulted on cases as simple as a neck injury caused by an auto accident, as high-profile as the Rodney King case and as groundbreaking as Fen-Phen, Vioxx, silicone implants and toxic mold litigation.
Additionally, legal nurse consultants provide healthcare expertise for insurance companies, utilization review firms, government agencies, private corporations and hospitals both as staff members and consultants. The legal nurse consulting profession allows nurses many options for establishing a satisfying and profitable part-time or full-time consulting career.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, Resources category)
Infra-red thermography latest weapon in detecting mold growth
July 10, 2006, 2:43 pmThis is a fascinating article about a new technology to detect mold. It’s also interesting from the perspective of legal process and general work around mold remediation. Here’s a quote from the Naples Daily News article:
Florida’s tropical climate is ideal for many full-time and part-time residents as well as vacationers. Unfortunately, it’s also the perfect climate for a not-so-welcome visitor: mold.
The business of detecting and eradicating mold in both residential and commercial buildings is growing rapidly in the Southwest Florida marketplace. While some companies only do visual inspections, one Estero-based firm has hired nationally-renowned mold experts and purchased the latest technology to allow them to detect what the eye cannot see.
“Clean Air Inspections is a science-based organization that has fully-insured, certified inspectors that inspect homes and businesses for mold and other hidden allergens,” said Sam Chiodo, CEO of The Chiodo Companies, the parent company of Clean Air Inspections. “Mold and air quality issues are now top of mind for homeowners, business owners and insurers nationwide due in part to recent weather phenomena.”
Clean Air Inspections’ commitment to maintaining the highest standards has prompted Chiodo to search nationally for experts on mold. That search led him to Steven D. Parkhurst, a certified industrial hygienist with 19 years of experience.
Parkhurst has been called upon almost 250 times to provide expert witness testimony, field evaluations, written opinions, case review and arbitration hearings and has provided these services for various counties, states and legal jurisdictions throughout the United States and the Caribbean.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, Resources, News category)
Monroe couple sues builder over construction problems
June 15, 2006, 10:40 amAnother tragic article about legal disputes from the Courier Post Online. Usual mistakes in building construction and the resulting mold and general mess. Here’s a quote:
If the D’Andreas prevail, the suit would cover thousands of K. Hovnanian homes purchased from 2000 to the present where the “HVAC system constructed and installed such that one or more stud wall cavity convey air from more than one floor level,” according to court documents. Tracy D’Andreas declined additional comment due to the pending litigation.
Other Chestnut Green residents say they will continue to try to work with the developer.
Bill McGrath said he needs to move out June 23 for a minimum of three weeks because of a mold problem.
McGrath said he told the developer about cracks in the home’s front facade last year, but the delay in fixing it caused moisture to enter the home’s frame. His home is on its fourth driveway due to cracks each time.
“I understand mishaps, but when you do half-a–ed corrections, that’s when people get angry,” McGrath said. “It’s one thing or another. It’s a shame. You don’t know what to do.”
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)
“Right To Repair” Law Investigated
May 13, 2006, 11:11 amAnother typical story, this one from Action News 2 in Atlanta. Here’s a quote:
More than 2 dozen states, including Georgia, have a “Right to Repair” law. That law requires homeowners to take certain steps before pursuing legal action against a builder – but it doesn’t guarantee a settlement, as Consumer Advisor Clark Howard explains.Fairington Park residents Kim Reid and Wanda Thomas are on a mission.
They want their builder to repair or replace windows in more than 60 units in a 3-year-old complex. You can see black mold growing under the windows in some homes – residents claim excess water is to blame.
“They’ve been pretty much coming out and doing patch work. They’re not saying it’s not their responsibility, but not giving us the permanent fix that we need,” Wanda Thomas says.
An engineer, hired by the condo association, concluded the only practical fix is to install “thermal breaks” to stop the condensation build-up. But residents found out, that fix is not covered by their extended warranty.
“As a consumer, you need to make sure you know what your warranty is when you buy it, and what the steps are when the warranty issues arise,” says Penelope Round with the Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association.
“I’ve also contacted the warranty company and they’re saying it’s not covered and that we should go back to the builder,” says Thomas.
—Administrator | no comments
(posted in the legal, News category)