Comment on http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021011.html
I am curious to know whether “sick building” syndrome becomes “toxic mold syndrome”. In other words, do you think that reports of sick buildings (from other pathogens) will decrease as toxic mold reports increase, or will the affect be cumulative, i.e. more total reports as a result of the media hype?
First, civil juries are specifically not allowed to equate correlation with causation. Lil’Ed was undoubtedly just being sarcastic. In an environmental injury case, a bona fide scientist must testify that he is relying on specific peer reviewed science publications generally accepted in the field to establish that A caused B. This is the Daubert case. What fun.
Sick building syndrom can be mold, but it can also be other agents, such as off-gassing of new carpets, bacterium, etc. Or a combination of annoying factors.
I’m guessing that both “sick building syndrome” and “toxic mold syndrome” will find their own little niche. We seem to have unlimited mental RAM for “things to worry about”. 
This “black mold” is turning into a huge, huge problem in Texas. Not just because it may be toxic, but because of the effect it has had on the insurance business here. Major insurance companies are no longer writing homeowners policies in the state, and IFAIK not renewing policies if there was a water damage claim within the last 5 years.
The local ABC affiliate ran a story about the mold earlier this week. While I missed the story it is available on line from here (free registration is needed).
The story was hyped in the commercials as saying that the “black mold” is nothing more than an elaborate insurance fraud scheme.
Cecil mentioned the case of Ronald Allison and Melinda Ballard, who won a $32 million jury verdict in Texas against their insurer for failing to properly handle their mold claim. I just checked, and that case is currently on appealto the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. Oral argument is set for two weeks from now. Both sides have some pretty serious legal firepower on their side. The plaintiffs even have Woody Jones, who until a year or two ago was the chief justice for the Austin court.
Should be interesting, to say the least. If the plaintiffs win again (and Austin is a fairly plaintiff-friendly court), it will likely end up in front of the Texas Supreme Court.
I’m really quite surprised by Cecil’s response here. This issue is a massive hot button and deserved more than just a cursory glance. Cecil’s survey of the science in the matter was almost completely lacking. Actually it was limited to anecdotal evidence. In my mind this is more the product of media hype and trial attorney propagation than scientific proof.
Where to start? Almost all mammals will have some reaction to mold. 99% of these reactions are of the allergic sort. There is a world of difference between an allergic reaction to mold spores and allegations of permanent irreparable injury. Many in the legal community and media want us to think that exposure to mold is like exposure to nerve gas. It’s not.
The “harmful” actors involved here are the mico-toxins, which coat some mold spores. These chemicals in significant doses are poisons. Like any other toxin they have a specific list of symptoms. A vast majority of the complaints linked to mold exposure are not the shown symptoms of the toxin involved.
A little known fact is that the Judge in the Ballard case did not allow any of the plaintiff’s “scientific” experts to testify. They did not meet the Texas requirements as experts. They were poorly qualified and their conclusions were not supported by any research done by the rest of the scientific or medical community. The verdict the Ballards received was for contractual damages only. After a rather shaky start large portions of the medical community are beginning to stand up and say that the conclusions of those who make their living as plaintiffs experts, are unfounded.
It’s not like mold is a new thing either. Mold has been with us in our homes and food since the beginnings of human life. The book of Leviticus Chapter 14 describes how the Jews should address mold growing in their homes over 6,000 years ago. Mold is not just the product of modern building methods. Oddly enough the steps listed in Leviticus in responding the mold (the term is variously translated as plague, cancer or mold) are almost exactly the same ones we take today.
One of my pet peeves in this whole thing is the phrase “black mold”. This term is routinely used to intimate that the mold involved is dangerous. Pull back you shower curtain and turn the lights on. I’ll bet you’ll see some black mold. And how do we deal with “black mold” We break out the tile cleaner (whose fumes to considerably more damage to your lungs than the mold). The point is that at one point in their life cycles almost all molds are black. Penicillin can be black, as can many species of aspergillus along with the much-feared stacibotrus. The color of a mold colony has been linked to the amount and type of light exposed it’s to, moisture levels and food sources. It is of almost no help in identifying mold. For that you need a microscope and a considerable amount of practice.
Lastly, of course the insurance companies are running scared. They cannot control what juries will do. It’s not their responsibility to further scientific research to the benefit of society. That would be the government’s job (possibly). Insurance companies routinely avoid risks that they cannot possibly collect enough premiums for; such as war or nuclear accidents, asbestos and now mold. Insurers don’t owe us a duty to protect our property from everything that happens. Only to honestly and fairly provide the benefits they stipulate to the contract. (Admittedly many have a problem doing that.) Remember that the first homeowner’s policies applied only to fires. Over the past 150 years they have slowly expanded to cover almost everything.
Cecil mentioned some reevaluation of the Cleveland mold studies.
My wife is a pediatrician and has contacts at the Centers for Disease Control. She sent me the following commentary:
“Actually the inside straight dope is not quite so straight, though
I understand that hysteria is not a particularly helpful response. The stuff about the Cleveland babies with pulmonary hemorrhage is very interesting (including repeat hemorrhage when returned to the same house!), and [a CDC employee] was the primary person at CDC who worked on that. The ‘reevaluation’ and recanting of the definitive link among the Cleveland babies was apparently a CDC political issue rather than a scientific one, and is one of the major issues that [the employee] left the CDC. I have asked [the employee] about this, because I was curious whether they were really backpedaling on the science or not.”
So, when a political entity (in this case, the CDC) does the science, it’s very hard to tell what is science and what is politics.
(removed CDC employee name at poster’s request)
I’m not surprised there. For anyone who’s interested in the subject of expert testimony, Texas has adopted the same “relevant and reliable” test as the US Supreme Court did for the federal courts in Daubert.
Actually, that’s incorrect. The jury’s verdict was for bad faith insurance practices and fraud, plus punitive damages. It was not a simple contract action.
You can find the trial transcripts and assorted legal documents here.
I’m wondering how “tight” buildings can be cited as a contributor to asthma, when it is (or was, last I heard) becoming much more prevalent in the cities, where the houses tend to be older and draftier.
I see it’s been a while since you’ve been out to the farm…
Old and drafty is a rural building code.
Yes, I know. There are, however, a lot more old, drafty houses in the city, what with the population density and all.
Jimson, Cecil’s column is limited in terms of number of words/amount of column space. There are lots of topics that he doesn’t tackle, because they can’t be condensed down to the column size. (Some of these become Staff Reports, which are not limited in word number.)
For lengthier topics, Cecil tries to provide a quick and concise overview. Alas, that meant he didn’t have room to bring up biblical references to discoloration on the walls of houses.
He assumes that readers who are interested in pursuing further can figure out how to do so.
I became sick from toxic mold and mildew in my classroom. I taught in that classroom for five years. I became sick shortly after
moving into that classroom from the dirty carpet. I know have asthma, hearing loss, bronchitis, allergies to dustmites chronic sinusitis and iritis. I filled a workmen’s comp suit in 1998 and won. I tried to contiue to teach but was continuously sick. I finally was able to retire this year on disability after having seizure like episodes. My health has detioreated to the the point that I plaqued by sysptoms no matter where I go. I guess it is not reversible. We have pettioned the court for a settlement date, but no amount of money can reclaim my health.
school sick
Most people are not harmed by these molds. However, some people are highly senstive to the toxins certain molds produce. And if they aren’t ventillated correctly and are allowed to build up, they can affect almost anyone.
As a Texas homeowner, I was recently offered a choice by my insurance company (not the one that dropped all homeowner’s coverage) of having a huge rate increase to continue getting black-mold coverage or of having my policy rewritten to exclude it. Owing to a highly unusual house design ( http://www.monolithicdome.com/ ) I’m not much worried, but for most people this would be no choice at all. Repairs for mold apparently involve ripping out the entire inside of the house and rebuilding from the frame.
I had been thinking that the troubles with mold and no coverage would be limited to whatever health effects might strike you plus a total inability to sell said house without forking over the cost of the repairs yourself. But apparently it can get worse. I’m told ( http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv ) that if you wind up with no homeowner’s coverage at all, this is legal grounds for the mortgage company to foreclose on your house.
Lets see, I post a long volatile opinion then duck out for 5 days. Well get ready here comes another novel.
**Minty ** you are of course correct. However I didn’t want to delve into the vagaries of the law in what was already a rather lengthy post. Farmer’s got nailed for poor claims handling practices. The proximate cause argument in property damage claims being well supported in most jurisdictions their denial of coverage was iffy at best.
C K Dexter Haven, thanks for the response. I know a decisive position was impossible given the topic, Cecil just seemed a little biased.
Louann Miller you bring up an interesting point but I’m skeptical of your source. It is unlikely that anyone will lose their home because they can’t get insurance. Everyone will be able to get insurance for their homes. They will be paying more and have less coverage. Arguments that people will lose their homes are emotive and designed to paint the insurance industry as the bad guys. They are not based in fact.
As an aside I have no idea why your home would cause an underwriter to think it’s at a higher risk for mold growth. If anything the food sources for mold are limited because the framing is not wood. When I build my dream house it will be of the insulated concrete form type. But I’ve always liked Dome Homes. What do your neighbors think?
Regarding your link to Molly Ivins, she sounds like a cool person. I like the beer drinking and story telling part of her “About the Author”. However she is off base and, in my opinion, an excellent example of a media insurance basher. She starts with ’ there are a number of causes’ but ultimately blames the insurance industry. She mixes and matches issues (some separately valid) concerning the insurance industry as a whole but these have nothing to do with homeowners’ premiums. (ie malpractice insurance and auto insurance along with excess and surplus lines)
Lets get something straight. Insurance companies operate for profit, just like every other business. A good year for an insurance company is if it spends only 5% more in claims than it takes in, in premium. That’s right if the company takes in $10,000,000 in premium in a year a good year is when they pay $10,500,000.00. Those figures are just for premium and claims payments, they don’t cover overhead like rent, salary and other operations expenses. The rest comes from investment income. To argue that any insurance company is foolish with investment income is absurd. The state insurance departments review investments anyway. In a bad year they pay 12,000,000.00. Bad years have been common in Texas.
If claims costs go up, the stock market takes a plunge, reinsurance markets go haywire after the world most expensive terrorist attack and Texas suffers several natural disasters guess what, premiums will go up…rapidly, coverage will be restricted. Molly should do more research. The state of Texas monitors all most all claims. In the past 3 years the State reports that the average settlement value of a water damage claim (leaking pipes or storm damage) has increased 800%. Water damage claims are one of the most common claims filed by homeowners.
Mold can cause health problems of that there is no doubt. But the levels of mold we are exposed to in buildings is often less then in the exterior air. In my personal opinion, this issue is being driven by reporters who need something that “bleeds” and lawyers looking for their 40%-50% share of the trial verdict
Sorry, I stated that ambiguously. I meant that because my house is all one piece of concrete, we feel less worried about mold than most people and therefore declined the extra-price mold coverage. I have no reason to think we were asked to pay higher rates on that because of our house design; I gather it was happening to everyone. (Our house is written up as an ‘all masonry’ structure, BTW; between that and the interior steel studs, we pay very low fire insurance rates. I love my house.)
I can appreciate your comments about “insurance bashers,” but the general run of customers is feeling a bit battered as well. The insurance industry’s response to the problem seems to be:
“Yep, that’s going to cost somebody billions and billions of dollars, all right. Not US, of course. Not even if we have to get the laws changed to make sure.”
I remember seeing a television program about the babies in Cleveland. The program gave the case for mold as a cause of the bleeding in the lungs, and didn’t mention any controversy. Does anyone know what some of the other proposed causes were? It was a very strange situation and I’m guessing whatever was harming those babies must have been very unusual…