The Trouble With Mold
July 6,
2009
When mold was discovered in
part of the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Honolulu, it ultimately resulted in
the closing for more than a year of an entire 453-room 25-story tower. It
is reported that Hilton spent some $20 Million on consulting and
investigation costs, and an additional $35 Million in the remediation.
This is one notable example among many of how the presence and growth of
mold in homes and commercial buildings has developed into a serious issue
that has potentially far reaching consequences for residential and
commercial property owners and managers, as well as for the construction
and insurance industries.
Several states have
established task forces to study mold and its effect on buildings and
indoor air quality. However, the intelligent dialogue required for the
development of proper standards for mold exposure and remediation has, in
large part, been drowned out by extreme voices. On the one hand are those
who summarily dismiss the issue as the fabricated product of a conspiracy
between tort lawyers and a developing cottage industry of mold remediation
consultants. On the other are those readily prepared to broadly attribute
a wide variety of medical conditions to the unhealthy environment of “sick
buildings.”
While it is true that mold is
an ancient life form that has, throughout history, been the constant
companion of humanity, its recent prominence as an indoor health issue is
explained by two features of modern building techniques – the use of
materials containing high concentrations of cellulose and other fibers
upon which molds feed, and the employment of insulating materials and
methods that restrict ventilation. Given the inviting food source
provided by present day building material, all that is required for
vigorous mold growth and amplification is the presence of water and a
building assembly that prevents the moisture from escaping or drying out.
One need not establish any
causal connection between the presence of mold and health issues in order
to recognize the need for proper mold removal. Indeed, putting health
matters entirely aside, molds deteriorate the building materials on which
they feed, necessitating the repair of affected components. Where
structural elements are involved, this can become a matter of building
stability as well as function. Additionally because of the manner in
which they digest materials, molds give off undesirable odors and diminish
aesthetic appearance, thereby degrading the indoor environment and
decreasing property values.
While the precise health
consequences of indoor mold exposure remain the subject of study and
debate, particularly as to the effect of its production of mycotoxins, it
is undisputed that molds are recognized allergens and reproduce by means
of airborne spores. A portion of the population will have some allergic
response to certain molds. This may manifest itself as rhinitis,
sinusitis or asthma, and highly sensitive individuals, and those with
pre-existing respiratory problems, may develop more serious symptoms.
Additionally, persons with severely compromised immune systems may be a
risk for fungal infections form some pathogenic molds.
Buildings do not have mold
problems unless they have water problems. Accordingly, building exterior
envelopes and plumbing and mechanical systems need to be designed,
constructed and maintained in a manner that protects vulnerable components
form moisture. Moreover, once water intrusion results in mold growth, the
water source must be eliminated and methodologies need to be in place for
mold removal.
In the absence of statutory
regulation, various industry guidelines that have been used to govern the
scope of mold remediation projects, including the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Guideline on Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial
Buildings. In general, it is recognized that hard and non-porous
surfaces can usually be cleaned, while absorbent or porous materials, such
as wallboard, carpet, and ceilings may require replacement.
Historically, insurance
claims for mold were permitted under property damage insurance policies
where the infestation arose from the intrusion of rain water as a result
of storms, or the discharge of water, steam, or condensation from plumbing
or mechanical systems. However, as mold related claims have increased,
insurers throughout the country have sought to exclude mold from property
damage coverage. In mid-2003, the Maryland Insurance Commissioner
reversed a ruling by his predecessor, and made mold exclusions
permissible. Where mold exclusions are applicable, coverage is only
available through the purchase of separate policies or endorsements.
The deterioration of building
components, the diminishment of indoor environmental quality and
aesthetics, and the potential for allergic reactions and other health
consequences provide reason enough to adopt policies that promote the
elimination of sources of indoor mold and provide a protocol for the
removal of mold growth.
Rather than allow extremists
to define the debate, the more reasoned approach is to adopt standards
that ensure watertight buildings, identify unacceptable levels of mold
contamination, and establish reasonable remediation criteria that allow
its removal while minimizing the spread of the airborne spores. To do
otherwise merely perpetuates the current uncertainties and hyperbole,
while the costs to property owners continue to accumulate.
Until such standards are in
place, property owners need to be mindful of the potential for harm to
their investment from water intrusion and mold. It should be part of any
due diligence checklist. Where problems occur, competent professionals
should be engaged to properly identify the source of the moisture and
develop specifications for an effective repair, as well as to determine
the need for and appropriate scope of any mold remediation program.
|