Mold: Are You Covered?

Karin Stamy
Membership Vice-Chair
Klstamy@nscorp.com

[Note: The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Sandy Rodgers and Gordon Barham of Willis North America in preparing this article.]

Introduction
Mold … everywhere we turn these days there are articles or commentaries on mold. Local and national newspapers, magazines, and television are inundating us with mold discussions – particularly focusing on the potential health hazards of mold and the escalating number of mold cases being litigated. By now, most people have heard about the infamous Ballard case in Texas. Ballard v. Fire Ins. Exchange, No. 99-05252 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 345th Dist., 2001). In June 2001, a Texas jury awarded Melinda Ballard and her family $32 million in damages from the Farmers Insurance Company, which issued the family’s homeowners policy. This case was on the front page of the Aug. 12, 2001, New York Times Magazine and has been analyzed in major engineering, scientific, medical, legal, construction and contractor journals since.

The earliest mold cases were the “courthouse cases” in Florida involving alleged construction defects which culminated in multi-million dollar settlements. The large dollar amounts awarded in these cases piqued the interest of the plaintiff’s bar. As a result, mold litigation over the past few years has grown in leaps and bounds. Seminars, newsletters, and conventions on mold are becoming more prevalent. The hot topic of mold has even produced a cottage industry of mold remediators.

Is mold the new and emerging toxic tort, to take the place of asbestos? There are factors that differentiate mold litigation from asbestos litigation such as weak medical causation evidence, lack of exposure standards, and an extremely short latency period of injury. Yet there appears to be a trend developing as the quantity and complexity of mold cases rapidly increases. Today’s mold litigation is appearing as a combination of construction defect, toxic tort and/or insurance bad faith claims.

This paper will attempt to clarify the mold issue from the science and regulatory standpoint and then address the related insurance coverage issues. The insurance issues include first and third party liability policies as well as environmental impairment liability policies. See also Blundell, David F., Note: Proliferation of Mold and Toxic Mold Litigation: What is Safe Exposure to Airborne Fungi Spores Indoors? 8 Envtl. Law. 389-405 (Feb. 2002).

Science
A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the air within residential and commercial buildings can be seriously polluted. Coupled with the fact that people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors, the risks to health may be greater due to exposure to air pollution indoors than outdoors. The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6604J), EPA Document # 402-K-93-007 (April 1995). The recent concerns raised over the health problems attributable to mold have increased this indoor pollution risk.

What is Mold?

Molds are microscopic fungi that live on plant or animal matter. Select species of mold have always impacted human health to some degree. Only recently has the scientific community identified mold as one of the causes of more severe adverse health effects in humans. For persons with sensitivity to molds, symptoms such as nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, or wheezing are common. Those with heightened sensitivity to mold may have more severe reactions that include fever and shortness of breath. People with chronic illnesses, such as obstructive lung disease, may develop mold infections in their lungs. “Mycotoxins of Molds and Maladies,” 108 Envtl. Health Persp. (Jan. 2000).

Molds are omnipresent – indoors and out. More than 200,000 species of mold have been identified around the world with over 1,000 species common to North America. The most common indoor molds found in the United States are Cladosporium, Penicillium and Aspergillus. Facts About Mold, New York City Department of Health. Although less common but the focus of most of the recent concern, Stachybotrys chartarum (Stachy) is also found in most buildings and homes. “Molds in the Environment,” Centers for Disease Control.

Mycotoxins
While molds themselves are relatively harmless, the mycotoxins (or secondary metabolites) they produce exert toxic effects on humans. These toxic effects are referred to as mycotoxicosis, the severity of which depends on the toxicity of the mycotoxin, the extent of exposure, age and nutritional status of the individual and possible synergistic effects of other chemicals to which the individual is exposed. Peraica, M.; Radic, B.; Lucic, A.; Pavlovic, M., “Toxic Effects of Mycotoxins in Humans,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Sept. 1, 1999. Unfortunately, the mycotoxins produced by structural molds – meaning molds imported into the residences, workplaces, and public buildings on the paper covering the drywall and other wood based composite materials –often represent some of the most toxic substances known. Michael R. Gray, M.D., M.P.H., C.I.M.E, “Molds, Mycotoxins, and Human Health,” unpublished work from http://www.mold-help.org.

Cladosporium

There are some 500 species described in the genus Cladosporium. Several common species found in indoor air are C(ladosporium)herbarum, C. sphaero-spermum, C. cladosporioides, and C. macrocarpum. Cladosporium is the most dominant group found in indoor surveys, in frequency and number. They have been isolated from kerosene, creosote-treated wood, face cream, dead or diseased plant tissues, air, soils, foodstuffs, paint, wood pulp, textiles, etc. Some species have been isolated from human organs. Infections of the nasal and paranasal sinuses have reportedly been caused by the inhalation of Cladosporium spores. “Knopfler and Robertson Micro-Organism Guide,” extracted from MEALEY’S Emerging Toxic Torts Special Report, Mealey Publications, Inc., King of Prussia, June 2000.

Penicillium

The genus Penicillium is a very large well-studied group because of their value as producers of antibiotics with over 200 species identified. Penicillium has been reported from dead or living vegetation, cereal grains and seeds, fruits, foodstuffs and animals. Penicillium has even been found growing on wet asbestos-containing insulation wraps and on water damaged sheetrock. Studies have shown that Penicillium is a common component of the indoor environment and can cause hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Many of the species are cellulolytic and some are mycotoxic. An interesting note is that the U.S. government spent millions of dollars during World War II studying Penicillium because they attacked and decayed ammunition boxes made of wood. Penicillium are considered allergenic; however, not much attention has been paid to them due to their relatively infrequent appearance in air of temperate climates. Id.

Aspergillus

Spores belonging to the genus Aspergillus are a common component of indoor air and have been known to cause: 1) infection in living tissues by the fungus (mycosis), 2) allergic reactions, and 3) toxicosis due to ingestion of foods containing toxins. Aspergillus flaus is known to produce a carcinogenic mycotoxin, aflatoxin. Another Aspergillus, A(spergillus) niger, is rather easy to recognize due to its black spore mass. It is worldwide in distribution and plays an important role in indoor pollution. A third Aspergillus, A. versicolor, is also common in air and has been isolated from human tissues, although its pathogenicity has not been proven. A. versicolor has a wide niche and can grow on many substrates. It is probably the most frequently isolated airborne Aspergillus in North America. Besides air, it has been reported from soils, plant parts, paper pulps, photographic optics and other substrates. It is prudent that mycotoxin production is taken into consideration when high levels of Aspergillus are detected in an indoor environmental assessment. Id.

Stachybotrys Chartarum (Stachy)

Stachybotrys chartarum (Stachy) is a greenish-black fungus found worldwide that colonizes particularly well in high-cellulose material, such as straw, hay, paper and cellulose-containing building material. Stachy is generally found on materials with high cellulose content (such as gypsum board, fiberboard, lint and dust that become chronically moist or water damaged due to excessive humidity, water leaks, infiltration, condensation or flooding. Stachy or S. chartarum is normally not found on materials such as plastic, vinyl, or ceramic tiles, nor is it the green mold in bread or between shower tiles.

Stachy has been documented to produce a series of potent toxins including satratoxins and other toxins affecting the immune system. These toxins have been known to produce adverse effects on the central nervous system, eyes, skin, and upper and lower respiratory tract, and, possibly, chronic fatigue. Other adult symptoms are immune suppression, bleeding and adverse reproduction effects. Id.

Health Effects of S. chartarum

The type of mold receiving the most press today is the mycotoxin-producing Stachy. The information available on the health effects of Stachy is preliminary at this stage of the game. There are no federal or state standards for safe levels of exposure to Stachy or other molds. Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor any of the states’ environmental regulators have designated Stachy or any other mold as a toxin, a pollutant or a hazardous waste.

The state of California passed the Toxic Mold Protection Act (see below for details), requiring the state Department of Health Services to establish a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for mold. This will be the first effort to document the potential health effects of mold in a regulatory setting.

Research to date has been focused on “guidance.” Guidance documents are reviewed below from two organizations – the Center for Disease Control and the New York City Department of Health.

Center for Disease Control

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has prepared a mold fact sheet that is basic and informative (see www.cdc.gov). The CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health states that Stachy and other molds may cause health symptoms that are nonspecific. It further states that at present there is no test that proves an association between Stachy and particular health symptoms. CDC also indicates that mold exposure does not always present a health problem; however, some people are sensitive to molds. These people may have severe reactions such as fever, shortness of breath and/or lung disease. See www.cdc.gov/nceh.

The NYC Department of Health

In 1993 The New York City (NYC) Department of Health (DOH), the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) and the Mt. Sinai Occupational Health Clinic convened an expert panel on Stachy in indoor environments. The purpose of the panel was to develop policies for medical and environmental evaluation and intervention to address Stachy contamination. The policy document was revised in November 2000 and expands the original guidelines based on a review of the literature regarding fungi and comments by experts in the field. These NYC “Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments” offer excellent information on the health effects of Stachy.

The Guidelines begin by commenting that inhalation of fungal spores, fragments (parts), or metabolites (e.g., mycotoxins and volatile organic compounds) may lead to or exacerbate immunologic (allergic) reaction, cause toxic effects or cause infections. According to the Guidelines, there are only a limited number of documented cases of health problems from indoor exposure to fungi. The most common symptoms reported from exposures in indoor environments are runny nose, eye irritation, cough, congestion, aggravation of asthma, headache and fatigue.

The NYC Guidelines also find that the presence of fungi on building materials, as identified by a visual assessment or bulk/surface sampling, does not necessitate that people will be exposed or exhibit health effects. In order for humans to be exposed indoors:

• fungal spores, fragments, or metabolites must be released into the air and
• be inhaled, physically contacted (dermal exposure), or ingested.

In addition, the Guidelines caution that whether or not symptoms develop in people exposed to fungi depends on:

• the nature of the fungal material (e.g., allergenic, toxic, or infectious),
• the amount of exposure, and
• the susceptibility of exposed persons. Susceptibility varies with
• genetic predisposition (e.g., allergic reactions do not always occur in all individuals),
• age,
• state of health, and
• concurrent exposures.

The NYC Guidelines state that the potential health effects of Stachy are that it may either lead to or exacerbate either immunologic reactions or toxic effects, or both.

Immunological reactions include asthma, HP (Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis), and allergic rhinitis. Contact with fungi may also lead to dermatitis. It is thought that these conditions are caused by an immune response to fungal agents. The most common symptoms associated with allergic reactions are runny nose, eye irritation, cough, congestion, and aggravation of asthma. HP may occur after repeated exposure to an allergen and can result in permanent lung damage.

Toxic effects of fungi have a wide variety of symptoms such as fatigue, nausea, headaches, and respiratory and eye irritation. Some of the symptoms related to fungal exposure are nonspecific, such as discomfort, inability to concentrate and fatigue. See http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us.

In summary, the scientific analyses of the toxic effects of fungi are still in the infancy stage. The research has started, and the expert scientists are beginning to line up on either side of the issue. Has the scientific methodology been developed and proven thoroughly enough to connect mold mycotoxins to the health effects alleged in the cases filed to date? The answer to that question is open to interpretation. The science of mold-related bodily injury is still developing, and has not caught up with the claims of the plaintiffs.

With or without agreement on the scientific evidence, mold cases are becoming more frequent and the jury awards, as well as the settlement figures, more severe. The next section addresses mold litigation in more detail.

Synopsis of Types of Mold Cases
Mold claims originated in the form of litigation brought by property owners, building owners, and/or homeowner associations, including condominium associations, and are presented as construction defect claims. Mold is often named as part of the damages resulting from the alleged construction defect where there is some form of water damage or moisture problem. This litigation is filed against general contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, installers and subcontractors. Almost any party that did any work on the project may be brought into these lawsuits. To date, the causes of action asserted include breach of contract, failure to construct an adequate building for its intended purpose, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.

Much of the mold construction defect litigation involves underlying water penetration and retention problems in buildings. Causes of these water problems include incorrect installations of EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish Systems), such as “Dryvit” or other similar products. EIFSs are synthetic stucco or stucco systems. They are a multi-layered exterior wall system consisting of a finish coat, a base coat and insulation board, all of which are secured to wallboard or plywood. EIFSs have been used in commercial and residential construction in the United States since 1969. There are very technical installation, sealant, and flashing requirements established by the EIFS industry to assist in preventing water intrusion. EIFSs have had a history of water penetration and retention problems. See, e.g., McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., No. 002802 (Va. S. Ct. Sept. 14, 2001), http://www.valawyersweekly.com/vasup/002802.htm. Other alleged causes of water penetration and retention that cause mold growth include improper handling of moisture in attics and other unoccupied spaces and improper or leaky HVAC installations.

Property owners and property managers are also defendants in some cases. Allegations against these defendants may include negligent maintenance or repair, failure to warn, or failure to maintain a safe premises. [Ed. On May 21, 2002, it was reported that two skyscrapers adjacent to the WTC site, the 25-story 1907 building and the 39-story 1 Bankers Trust, might have to be demolished due to extensive mold contamination. The mold contamination arose after sprinklers went off after the buildings were damaged in the WTC collapse and rain water also entered the buildings. WCBS Radio, May 21, 2002.]

Insurance bad faith cases include the very well publicized example of the Ballard case noted above.

The following discusses specific cases that represent examples of each of these types of claims.

Negligent Construction – Builder Breached His Construction Contract

One of the first highly publicized mold trials was the Martin County courthouse case in Stuart, Florida. A construction company, Centex, had entered into a construction management agreement with the County to serve as the manager for the construction of a new courthouse complex. Several trade contractors were retained by Centex to perform various aspects of the construction, and the complex was certified substantially complete in September 1988. Following its occupation of the courthouse and office building in early 1989, the County made several complaints to Centex about window

and exterior wall leaks, mold growth and excessive humidity. Upon determining that the courthouse complex needed to be redesigned and reconstructed, the County relocated its employees.

In October 1992, the County brought suit, filing a construction defect action against several defendants, including Centex, the project architect, and the concrete and masonry contractor. Breach of contract and negligence were alleged regarding design and construction of the complex.

The County’s cause of action for breach of contract against Centex was that Centex failed to properly supervise the construction, resulting in shoddy workmanship and extensive damage. Two types of mold, one of which was Stachy, were found in the building. Bodily injury allegations were made by 15 people alleging asthma-like symptoms as well as rashes as a result of the mold. Prior to trial, the County settled with the architect and the concrete and masonry contractor for $2.75 million and dismissed negligence claims against them.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of $11.55 million against Centex and its sureties, which the court reduced by $2.75 million (the amount the County had received in pretrial settlements). The trial court subsequently entered an amended final judgment for $14,211,156, comprised of $8.8 million in damages, plus $5,411,156 in prejudgment interest. Centex appealed the decision, and the appellate court found that the County presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving that Centex’s breach of contractual responsibilities was a substantial factor in causing the County’s extensive damage; the reason for the evacuation and whether that reason was supported by the evidence was immaterial to the elements that the County was required to prove in its contract action. The appellate court ruled that in a case involving the breach of a construction contract, a recognized measure of damages is the reasonable cost of performing construction and repairs in conformance with the original contract’s requirements. The court concluded that the jury’s verdict of $11.55 million, as well as the imposition of prejudgment interest, should be affirmed; the reduction of the original award by the settlement amount was also found to be correct.

Negligent Repair – Landlord Has Duty to Maintain the Premises

In Stroot v. New Haverford, two tenants of a Maryland apartment complex alleged that the toxic mold and fungi in their apartments was due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the apartments in a safe and sanitary condition. They alleged that this exposure caused their asthma, cognitive deficits, bronchitis and immune system abnormalities. After a two-week trial, the jury awarded one plaintiff $1 million for personal injuries and $5,000 for property damage. This award was reduced by 22 percent for contributory negligence. The other tenant was awarded $40,000 for personal injuries, also reduced by the same 22 percent. The landlord appealed the case arguing that it had no duty to maintain the apartments, the jury verdict was excessive and the trial court should have granted the motion to reduce the jury verdict. The appellate court held that the landlord does have a duty to maintain the leased premises in a safe, sanitary condition and affirmed the trial court. The appellate court also did not find either the $1 million verdict or the $40,000 verdict to be unreasonable. New Haverford Partnership v. Elizabeth Stroot and Joletta Watson, 772 A.2d 792 (2001 Del. LEXIS 201).

In the Phipps case in New York City, approximately 500 New York City apartment residents settled their lawsuits with building owners for $1.17 million. Phipps Plaza South and Phipps Housing Services, Inc. owned the apartment building in question. Plaza South operated, maintained, managed and controlled the common areas and the building structures and was responsible for the maintenance. The plaintiffs alleged that mold and fungi contamination caused them personal injury and property damage. Some of the causes of action included negligence, carelessness, and recklessness against Phipps. Damage claims included personal injury, loss of consortium, pain and suffering and asthma. The $1.17 million settlement resolved the claims of all 493 plaintiffs.

Insurance Bad Faith – Carrier Handled Claim Improperly

In the Ballard suit in Texas, the plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance company delayed in paying a claim for a plumbing leak. This delay, according to the plaintiff, allowed toxic mold to spread and caused her husband and child to get sick. Melinda Ballard had a homeowner’s policy from Fire Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Farmers Insurance Group. She had water leaks in the bathroom and near the refrigerator in the kitchen. She alleged the insurance adjuster delayed in responding to the claim, failed to repair the leaks appropriately, undervalued the claim, and because of that she and her family were exposed to mold and became ill. Causes of action included negligence and breach of contract. A jury awarded Ballard $32 million after finding that the carrier acted in an unfair, deceptive and fraudulent way when evaluating the mold property damage claim. It is important to note that Ballard was a case against the Farmers Insurance Company for improper claims handling – not a claim against the homebuilder. Mary Ballard, et al. v. Fire Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 99-05252, Tex. Dist., Travis Co.).

Failed HVAC System Allegations

A California Superior Court judge brought suit alleging that a faulty heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system caused hazardous microbial contaminants to colonize in her courtroom, which caused her to suffer bodily injury. The judge’s causes of action included dangerous condition of public property, fraudulent concealment, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence by construction defendants, and nuisance. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages. Elisabeth B. Krantv. County of Tulare, et al., NO. 00-0190367 (Tulare Co., Cal. Super. Ct.), Mealeys Emerging Toxic Torts (June 2000).

EIFS Manufacturer Ordered to Pay $2.5 Million for Products Defect

In the first verdict against a maker of Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS), also known as synthetic stucco, a Virginia State Court judge ordered Dryvit Systems to pay $2.5 million for construction defects and mold at a condominium community. The condominium association alleged that the structural defects in the condominiums were due to interior and exterior wood decay, which was a direct result of allowing foreseeable water intrusion to drain through the EIFS-clad walls. The water intrusion allegedly caused mold and mildew that contributed to the property damage. In a pretrial ruling, the judge determined that regardless of the builder that installed the EIFS, the damages would have occurred because the EIFS itself was defective. Board of Directors of the Bay Point Condominium Association Inc., et al. v. RML Corp.,et al., No. CL99-475 (Va Cir. Norfolk Co.) Mealeys Litig. Rep.: Mold (Feb. 2002).

Repercussions – Regulations and Legislation

Texas Department of Insurance Response

Shortly after the $32 million jury verdict in the Ballard case, Farmers Insurance announced that it would no longer write new homeowners policies in Texas. This decision was based largely on the escalating mold claims received on the “HO-B” policy used in Texas. Two other large homeowners insurance companies in Texas followed: Allstate Insurance Company and Progressive Insurance Company. Carriers stated they could not afford to take on potential mold exposure because the liability is undefined and potentially unlimited.

The Texas Department of Insurance held public hearings to promote a compromise solution. On March 8, 2002, the Texas Insurance Commissioner authorized State Farm to sell Texans a “national” homeowner’s policy in lieu of the HO-B. The substitute State Farm policy provides limited mold coverage from “sudden and accidental” discharges of water from plumbing, air conditioning systems and appliances. Unlike the HO-B policies, the substitute policy does not cover damage from slow leaks or damage to slab foundations resulting from plumbing leaks. The substitute State Farm policies offer the option of buying (for an additional premium) full mold remediation coverage with limits of $15,000, $25,000, $50,000 or full policy limits. Other insurance companies may use the State Farm substitute policy in Texas if they meet certain requirements. These include satisfying the Commissioner that the rates charged for these policies will be commensurate with any changes in coverage. The Dallas Morning News July 31, 2001, Aug. 02, 2001; Mealeys Litig. Rep.: Mold Vol 1., Issue #10 (Oct. 2001).

The Toxic Mold Protection Act

The first comprehensive legislation on mold in the United States was passed in California and became effective Jan. 1, 2002. The “Toxic Mold Protection Act,” California SB 732 (Health and Safety Code §§ 26100-26156; Stats. 2001, Ch. 584), addresses indoor environmental quality related to mold in commercial and residential properties.

Some of the key points in the Act are as follows:

1) The Act requires the California Department of Health Services (DHS) to convene a task force to advise the DHS on the development of:

• permissible exposure limits to mold;
• standards for assessment of mold in indoor environments;
• alternative standards for hospitals, child care facilities, and nursing homes; and
• standards for identification and remediation of mold.

The Act requires these items to be completed in a report by July 1, 2003 and revised every 5 years thereafter.

2) The Act also requires any person that sells, transfers, or rents residential, commercial, or industrial real property or a public entity that owns, leases, or operates a building who knows, or in specified instances should know, that mold is present in levels excess of the permissible standards, would be required to provide written disclosure to potential buyers, renters, landlords, or occupants.

The required report should clarify a number of the outstanding mold issues, at least for the State of California. It will specify the liability for property owners/operators due to the disclosure requirement in part 2 of the Act mentioned above. The “knew or should have known” language of the Act could result in complex litigation as the courts develop case law around the knowledge people subject to the disclosure requirements have about mold. This presents a window of opportunity for insureds to take a proactive position and ensure that their insurance program provides the appropriate coverage.

[Ed. On Jan. 11, 2002, it was reported that California has “zero funding” to implement the state’s new Toxic Mold Protection Act. Funding to implement Department of Health Services’ studies may be delayed for a year. Costs of implementing the research demanded by the law are estimated at $700,000 annually. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News Jan. 11, 2002. On May 14, 2002, it was reported that “mold claims have proliferated in the past year in Florida” and as a result 83 insurers have, so far, asked the Florida Department of Insurance for permission to exclude mold claims from homeowners policies and 69 insurers have asked to exclude mold claims from commercial policies. South Florida Sun-Sentinel May 14, 2002.]

Remediation Guidance Documents
Presently there are three major remediation guidance documents available for assessment and remediation of mold. These are not law. As guidance documents, they are not legally enforceable by any regulatory body. These three documents are distinct from the health effects guidance discussed above.

1) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): Mold Remediation in School and Commercial Buildings (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/i-e-r.html). This document presents guidelines for the remediation/cleanup of mold and moisture problems in schools and commercial buildings and can be used as a reference for residential properties also. It has a thorough resource list, references and appendices. The information contained in this document could be very helpful, especially in choosing a remediation contractor.

2) The New York City Department of Health – Bureau of Environmental & Occupational Disease Epidemiology: Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments, http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/moldrpt1.shtml. This document offers detailed recommendations on a step-by-step approach to assessment and remediation of mold in various types of indoor environments and at various stages of growth. Five different levels of abatement are described. The size of the area impacted by fungal growth and whether it is a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or property (wallboards) are some of the distinctions made. This document also contains a thorough list of notes and references.

3) The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): “Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control” is widely referred to as the “Bible” for industrial hygienists and establishes a standard of care for anyone involved in performing a microbial investigation or remediation.

[Ed.: This balance of this article will be published in the next In-House Counsel Committee Newsletter.]