I truly can’t help if you’ve developed the wrong opinion or belief, that is something I can’t fix. They are yours and are as valid as anyone else’s.
This is wholly a commentary on liability coverage for construction defects and mold – taken collectively and detailed separately. Understanding insurance and its lingo is very important to these concepts. You’re right that construction defect leading to any bodily injury would potentially be covered, which is one of the reasons I used the example of an improperly installed chandelier – I may have made a error of assumption that readers would make the correlation (yes, improperly installed stairs in your example would likely be covered). But don’t confuse a court case and its findings with a discussion of coverage issues. My concern is not on what basis the case was tried – the point was to debate the availability of liability insurance coverage for the builder if a claim were made for construction defects or mold using examples from an interesting current event.
The next commentary will specifically address mold damage, but without giving too much away, bodily injury from mold is not necessarily excluded in the unendorsed CGL policy, but there are some endorsements that make it VERY different than other bodily injury claims resulting from defective construction (or any other causes) – that’s the reason mold is coupled with defective construction in this series. Remember we are talking about liability coverage, not property. Mold damage is usually (almost always) excluded or severely limited in property policies, but not liability.
In regards to mold, I don’t need to do anything to scare the industry – they are already afraid of it, that’s the reason fungi and mold exclusionary endorsements are religiously attached to general liability policies, especially to any insured’s policy in the building industry.
I completely agree with your statement that it is the lack of addressing the mold in a timely manner that inflames the problem, but the insidious thing about mold is, it might remain hidden UNTIL is causes a problem. If it’s growing in the crawl space or some other area where no one ever goes, no one is likely to know about it until someone gets sick – then it’s there and it has already begun to cause property damage and bodily injury potentially leading to questions of coverage.
I guess I don’t understand why anyone would have to bring in any medical associations, DC or any other groups to have an opinion as to whether coverage exists in the CGL for bodily injury or property damage caused by defective construction, mold or any other cause; it’s simply a coverage question involving coverage triggers and exclusions. Change on your two cents.
Builders, in fact all trades and professions, should undertake to do the best for their customers and clients – I’ll agree wholeheartedly with you about that – the sad part is, only a few people care as much as you obviously do about doing the right thing.
Mrs. Kramer, I very much appreciate your comments and your willingness to take part in this discussion.
This is the IRMI link I referenced in my earlier post, and didn’t have handy at the time. For some reason, maybe because I posted it as a LINK, it didn’t work, so am trying again without the “www.”
It looks to me like there are:
1. many areas on which we agree;
2. areas that you understand much better than I (without much study) regarding insurance policy lingo/coverage; and
3. areas that I understand much better than you (without much study) regarding public policy in conjunction with insurance coverage and mold induced injury.
And.. you are right! Builders and insurers are already scared. So are sick people. Fear is the driving force behind much of the unnecessary contention over the matter.
I think I will wait for your next article in the series before I comment further. Maybe it will offer me more clarification as to what you are saying with this series. You can show me mold injury and insurance policies as it relates to construction defect coverage. I will show you mold and public policies as it relates to insurance. The two areas are very much connected as insurance concerns drive much of the public health policy over the issue.
If you search the phrase, “Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats” it will take you to several links that show you what I and many others see as a primary area of confusion over this matter that fuels contention, misinformation and thus litigation that is scary indeed for all involved. The above is the title of a Wall Street Journal article, Jan 2007.
I look forward to reading your next article. When should I check back?
The article on Mold won’t be out until week after next (I have to interrupt the series for another article next week).
I did a little research and was wondering if you’d like to work with me on one or two mold-related articles. I think our collaboration could result in something great.
If so, let me know and I will send you my email address.
I would be delighted to work with you. I would love to understand why you think what you do over this issue, since your perspective seems mainly from the insurer’s perspective of the matter. And to share with you what I think, since my perspective is mainly from the insured’s.
I can tell you that I think this issue has been allowed to become a mountain of unnecessary financial liability and undue illness, when it should be nothing more than a mold hill.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Dear Mrs. Kramer,
I truly can’t help if you’ve developed the wrong opinion or belief, that is something I can’t fix. They are yours and are as valid as anyone else’s.
This is wholly a commentary on liability coverage for construction defects and mold – taken collectively and detailed separately. Understanding insurance and its lingo is very important to these concepts. You’re right that construction defect leading to any bodily injury would potentially be covered, which is one of the reasons I used the example of an improperly installed chandelier – I may have made a error of assumption that readers would make the correlation (yes, improperly installed stairs in your example would likely be covered). But don’t confuse a court case and its findings with a discussion of coverage issues. My concern is not on what basis the case was tried – the point was to debate the availability of liability insurance coverage for the builder if a claim were made for construction defects or mold using examples from an interesting current event.
The next commentary will specifically address mold damage, but without giving too much away, bodily injury from mold is not necessarily excluded in the unendorsed CGL policy, but there are some endorsements that make it VERY different than other bodily injury claims resulting from defective construction (or any other causes) – that’s the reason mold is coupled with defective construction in this series. Remember we are talking about liability coverage, not property. Mold damage is usually (almost always) excluded or severely limited in property policies, but not liability.
In regards to mold, I don’t need to do anything to scare the industry – they are already afraid of it, that’s the reason fungi and mold exclusionary endorsements are religiously attached to general liability policies, especially to any insured’s policy in the building industry.
I completely agree with your statement that it is the lack of addressing the mold in a timely manner that inflames the problem, but the insidious thing about mold is, it might remain hidden UNTIL is causes a problem. If it’s growing in the crawl space or some other area where no one ever goes, no one is likely to know about it until someone gets sick – then it’s there and it has already begun to cause property damage and bodily injury potentially leading to questions of coverage.
I guess I don’t understand why anyone would have to bring in any medical associations, DC or any other groups to have an opinion as to whether coverage exists in the CGL for bodily injury or property damage caused by defective construction, mold or any other cause; it’s simply a coverage question involving coverage triggers and exclusions. Change on your two cents.
Builders, in fact all trades and professions, should undertake to do the best for their customers and clients – I’ll agree wholeheartedly with you about that – the sad part is, only a few people care as much as you obviously do about doing the right thing.
Mrs. Kramer, I very much appreciate your comments and your willingness to take part in this discussion.
International Risk Management Institute: http://www.irmi.com/About/CompanyInfo/Anniversary.aspx This is in re: to the IRMI.com site I mentioned in my earlier post. I didn’t have it handy at the time.
This is the IRMI link I referenced in my earlier post, and didn’t have handy at the time. For some reason, maybe because I posted it as a LINK, it didn’t work, so am trying again without the “www.”
irmi.com/About/CompanyInfo/Anniversary.aspx
Dear Mr. Boggs,
It looks to me like there are:
1. many areas on which we agree;
2. areas that you understand much better than I (without much study) regarding insurance policy lingo/coverage; and
3. areas that I understand much better than you (without much study) regarding public policy in conjunction with insurance coverage and mold induced injury.
And.. you are right! Builders and insurers are already scared. So are sick people. Fear is the driving force behind much of the unnecessary contention over the matter.
I think I will wait for your next article in the series before I comment further. Maybe it will offer me more clarification as to what you are saying with this series. You can show me mold injury and insurance policies as it relates to construction defect coverage. I will show you mold and public policies as it relates to insurance. The two areas are very much connected as insurance concerns drive much of the public health policy over the issue.
If you search the phrase, “Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats” it will take you to several links that show you what I and many others see as a primary area of confusion over this matter that fuels contention, misinformation and thus litigation that is scary indeed for all involved. The above is the title of a Wall Street Journal article, Jan 2007.
I look forward to reading your next article. When should I check back?
Take care and call me “Sharon”.
Sharon,
Please feel free to call me Chris.
The article on Mold won’t be out until week after next (I have to interrupt the series for another article next week).
I did a little research and was wondering if you’d like to work with me on one or two mold-related articles. I think our collaboration could result in something great.
If so, let me know and I will send you my email address.
Thanks.
Dear Chris,
I would be delighted to work with you. I would love to understand why you think what you do over this issue, since your perspective seems mainly from the insurer’s perspective of the matter. And to share with you what I think, since my perspective is mainly from the insured’s.
I can tell you that I think this issue has been allowed to become a mountain of unnecessary financial liability and undue illness, when it should be nothing more than a mold hill.
Take care,
Sharon