Both the IICRC S500 (Water Damage) and IICRCS520 (Mold) have ANSI Certification (American National Standards Institute).

               Besides standard protocols,these standards are recognized by the U.S. court system.

     My Xactimate is set up with macros detailing these protocols for various line items I charge for. I find most adjusters don't

 mind paying the bill,as long as they know why they are paying for a particular line item.Adding wording from the Standard helps

 to educate them as to why. I find some of the resentment towards "rug suckers"comes from bad experiences with ripoff or

 uneducated contractors.  As someone who holds 8 different certifications in Fire,Water, Sewage and Mold Remediation,as well as

 being a Certified Mold Inspector by the IAQ council,as well as many hours of seminars under my belt,I hate being lumped in

 with contractors who don't know psychometry from Aspergillus......................I carry Pollution Insurance which by itself costs

 me 17k a year,with a 10k deductible. I need to follow the Standard to the letter to protect the occupants of a dwelling,as well

 as to cover my a** in a court of law. Do I think some of these charges are ridiculous? Of course I do........however,I did not write

  the rules,I just follow them.  On the other hand,I have run into adjusters who know just enough to be dangerous,trying to deny

  charges based on guesswork rather than knowledge of the subject. Once we justify charges with reference to the IICRC protocol

 and the fact that we will not back down unless the Insurance Co. will override the IICRC Standard in writing,the discussion ends.

   I certainly don't get nasty,I just explain it is my butt on the line,I am following court recognized Standards and my pricing comes

  from Xactimate,written by the Ins industry,not by me. ..............Michael,find a good contractor and he will give you a copy of the IICRC

  S500 or S520............I do that with my adjusters,the best money I have ever spent.

All of the above post is not a fact,just a sales pitch and I would not make these statements unless someone shows you the case law and xmate shows how the line items prices were formulated. The truth will set you free water suckers. I have been in court as a witness for over two weeks and mold could not be introduced, as all federal and state courts consider the witness and experts as "junk science"

Makes you think Insurance carriers do not care how much insurance losses amount to as they will get higher premiums for losses paid.... hmm... I have known that for 50 years. All the carriers need is measurable units and who has more units to measure than xmate??

Psychometry is a psychic ability in which a person can sense or "read" the history of an object by touching it. Such a person can receive impressions from an object by holding it in his/her hands or touching it to the forehead. 

I have to admit that the mental image of a water restoration contractor pressing his face against a sheetrock wall is rather whimsical.

Perhaps you meant psychrometry:

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 unctuationKerning /> false false false ontGrowAutofit /> MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]>

Psychrometry is a term used to describe the field of engineering concerned with the determination of physical and thermodynamic properties of gas-vapor mixtures.

 I'm quite sure that some contractors think they possess magical abilities, but in court I'll pit my scope and estimate against a psychic sucker any time.

[Edited to better reflect my desire to appear humorous rather than combative or derogatory]

Mike, I am one adjuster who appreciates that water damage has a fuse burning with a time bomb if it does not get dry and stable. Regardless of how the fees are determined, the building needs to get dry and stable. Someone has to do it, and whenever an amateur does it there is trouble.

I can recall dozens of occasions where the "homeowner" sets a fan on wet carpet without even detaching it from the perimeter of the walls and removing the pad which has become a sponge full of water, calls in the clam when it starts to smell.

These losses usually occur around plumbing, often in the kitchen, where there is a window = exterior wall = insulation holding water in the walls, and water trapped under the cabinets.

I have done a lot of cat work where no one was able to respond in time, and a lot of daily claims where you see the result of fast response vs slow or no response.

None of us want to over-pay, but when it comes to water damage remediation (step 1 = dry it out) you almost CAN'T overpay to dry it out when you look at how much more it is going to cost to fix it if it sits and rots. Aside from the mold - monkey suit issue, the property damage is just going to escalate if it is not dried out quickly, and someone has to do it. I find that the people who do it frequently (yellow and green vans) are a better gamble than a contractor who does remodels and is not familiar with water damage drying.

I had one recently where a contractor built a beautiful custom home with exposed truss & post-beams, solid wood floors. The water softener was installed with the new construction, and the discharge line was placed somewhere that did not really drain to the outside world and so the water went into the walls, and no one was home for a week. Upon discovery the contractor rented ONE FAN and aimed it at the wall, but water had gone between the finished floor and sub-floor in 4 rooms.

Last year in my part of California a local water remediation contractor lost a mold related lawsuit and had over 100k jury damage verdict, and from what I understand most of the mold was pre-existing in a poorly ventilated sub-area. So regardless of junk-science or if it is really a health hazard, the general public has a perception and there are yellow pages full of attorneys. We just need to do the best we can to get claim related damages dry and stable as quickly as possible, and allow reasonable charges to do so.

If it was your house, and you wanted to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage, you would welcome someone drilling holes in the toe-kicks of your cabinets or setting up an "injecti-dry" system of tubing with forced air into the wall cavities along the area that is going to be covered up with baseboard when it is done.  The names of the equipment is not important, it is the function that needs to be done (or just cut out the lower perimeter of drywall if more cost-effective).

I have personally been using Xm8 for 15 years, and the price of a turbo fan per day has essentially kept up with inflation. I remember they were $20 or so a day and now they are in the $30 range, but it is basically real-world costs (go rent one at United rentals). I had a recent commercial claim with 50k of electronic contents either wet or sitting in super-humid conditions. The Insd had already priced out dehumidifiers at United Rentals, and ended up going with ServPro as it was cheaper per unit and they had the knowledge of what to do. Folks, it is a necessary evil and I do not get adversarial with "water suckers" AT ALL. If their bill is out of line then I negotiate it. If they are doing something that isn't needed then I bring it to their attention. It is called adjusting the claim.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...and xmate shows how the line items prices were formulated.

Ray, if you want to see how Xm8 determines their prices, there is an "i" next to the unit cost that you can click on for "information" on how the price is arrived at.  I will paste an example of that later on this thread.  That's how you find how many Sf of drywall they allow for in a min-charge, and it breaks down labor, how many drywall screws, mud, tape, etc.  The drying equip is no different, it has all of the costs for equipment, and labor rate with burdon for Work Comp, etc.

This is a free market society, and my phone book is full of competition to ServPro and ServiceMaster in the form of "carpet cleaners" who also offer water damage and emergency service work.  There are people that used to work for ServPro who have gone off on their own.  I don't care who does the work as long as the water doesn't sit there causing more damage and we can agree on a reasonable value for the work performed. 

But the work has to be done by somebody, and that is the starting point of understanding this topic.  It cannot be ignored, and it is not going to go away.  Someone has to perform that first step of emergency services, and it is not part of the insurance contract to say that the homeowner does it themselves.  It has a dollar amount, and it is simply part of the claim.

I have several thousand storys of water suckers and carpet dryers charging more for thier services to "save" or to "dry" out that was money down the drain and it cost twice as much if the homeowner and adjuster reached an agreed loss before these"experts with 2 weekends of training" showed up.

How about the housewife whose husband and brother inlaw run a drywall firm do not respond to the wives frantic call when the water shut off could not be found.  She called the water suckers and they charged 3k to pull all the carpet and pad and the Ded was 1% on a $300,000 house. The husband and brother in law arrived  with 2 helpers when I did and would not pay the $3k as we all agreed the job could be done in 12 man hrs as this was the time the experts took. and charge the insurance company 3K instead of $25.00 per hour or even $50.00

I have NEVER seen a loss that the water has to be removed in a matter of hours. If its wet its wet and fans and heaters will  not bring it back..........

Bob you dont spread  bad info, but I was right in the middle of mold gold for 3 years and I know this bunch of water suckers turned to CIC's What a crock of BS

Please send me CLMVSW> clean vase-wicker-large EA $12.87 and  post it so we non believers can see written gospel.

Their is not a case in history that has proved that clear water spilled over the floors of any house will injury the occupants if they do not call "certified waters contractors".1 Many people do not realize this is covered by insurance and never call in a claim 2. Many people do not want this to go on the clue report. Many people just clean it up themselves(which is a lot of work). Water-Smoke Contractors started in the early 60's and how did I adjust  losses for 5 years before they came along as well as the thousands of adjusters before me.

Many insurance carriers are not impressed with their pitch and will pay a regular claim adjuster T & E to squeeze the water out of the xmate estimates. This is how I work and I will take all I can handle. The fee bill is on the way out in many commercial losses.

Change the subject, water suckers and adjusters beware the water sucker police force is getting mobilized.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...I have several thousand storys of water suckers and carpet dryers charging more for thier services to "save" or to "dry" out that was money down the drain

No one wants to pay to try and save carpet that is starting to delaminate, or has furniture stains that are not going to come out. When carriers don't pay for an adjuster to go out on site, they lose the ability to have those decisions made in time.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...She called the water suckers and they charged 3k to pull all the carpet and pad and the Ded was 1% on a $300,000 house.

Was a kitchen or bath involved? Did they do anything other than pull flooring? If it is a serious water loss, even if the wet (HEAVY) carpet just gets cut into strips and hauled out the door, I typically see a lot of base pulled (will have water trapped behind) and attempts to save cabinets for that price. I just had a claim go over $40,000 because that kind of work wasn't done in time and the cabinets and counter had to go. I don't care how big the deductible is, if no one is mitigating damage after a couple days, they had their chance. Someone has to stop the bleeding and if the homeowner, her husband, their relative, neighbor, or friend isn't doing it, I remind them of their policy obligation to mitigate damage and hand them a phone book.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...I was right in the middle of mold gold for 3 years and I know this bunch of water suckers turned to CIC's What a crock of BS

I remember when the Texas Dripping Springs (Ballard claim) mold fiasco spread across the entire country, we got it in California too. My focus (and most remediation contractors) is to PREVENT mold. I think that is the focus of this thread. We have to be pro-active and the other thread we had on moisture meters is part of that. I firmly believe every adjuster should have at LEAST an econo pin-type moisture meter or you won't really, really be confident about the scope of work that is needed at that house, at that stage of it's soggy life.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...Please send me CLMVSW> clean vase-wicker-large EA $12.87 and post it so we non believers can see written gospel.

I am not selling Xm8, and if someone came up with easier software that was broadly accepted by my clients I would be overjoyed. Xm8 is very hard to master (but you can do "something" with it your first day). Keep in mind that ISO purchased Xm8 this year, and it is used by 80% of Insurance companies, it is not just "contractor" software. When I was introduced to it in 1992 State Farm had already been using it for years, it had depreciation, and other adjuster features. It is used by Farmers, Century National, USAA, and to some degree you have to dance with the one that brought ya.

Let's say the homeowner paid $30 for this thing and it cost half that to clean it.  Depending on if you think it will restore or not, that is the judgment.  I have done fire-smoke claims where virtually none of the items cleaned acceptably and was a huge waste of money to pay to attempt clean, store, and when the building was finally done the homeowner rejected almost all of it.  As adjusters we are paid to put our foot down and resolve these issues, sometimes one piece of furniture at a time until it is done.

But if you are going to clean it - what is a fair price???  this Xm8 program is basically saying a laborer can clean about 2 of these an hour and allows some cleaning materials + labor.

It cost more in CA than it does in TX.  If this vase was smooth surfaced and NOT WICKER the cost to clean it would be 1/3 of this price and more likely to be a successful restoratoin if it was smoke damaged.  I wouldn't try to save anything made of wicker unless it was just ever so slightly dusted with ash or something.

Click on the "i" to the right of the price to get more info.

32 cents of materials used, based on a cleaning solution that cost about $13 a gallon and will yield (clean) about 40 of these items.  Xm8 often has a "direct yield" and a "yield" and the difference is a waste factor.  For example they have a 10% waste factor built in to hardwood flooring materials.

they are saying a laborer can do a bit more than 2 of these an hour, and for the time he is spending on this one item the laborer will get a direct wage of about $5 and the rest of it is labor burdens for work comp, liability insurance, adjustments for zip code pricing

For anyone interested, Xm8 is very open about their labor prices and how they are determined.  It is on their web site, and the program on your computer has labor rates for roofer, tile setter, etc etc and has all this info.  the guy installing shingles only receives a fraction of the roofing hourly rate, their Work Comp is very high.

For the most part, I find that the labor rates are pretty close to real-world prices for that trade.  You will occasionaly run into a repair done by a handyman, or relative and they are refreshingly cheap. 
----------------------
In the early '90s I could not convince the vendor I was working for to purchase Xm8 and I suffered with a "shareware" estimating program.  The pricing database was terrible, so I learned how to write my own database.  That went OK for a while - but then the issue of taxes on materials came up.  My part of the world taxes materials, not labor.  The database really does need to separate out labor and materials, and if you look at an Xm8 "summary" page it will say the combined amount of materials on that estimate x (tax rate) = amount of tax for that estimate .  It will add the cost of carpet pad, etc. etc.  just the materials and no labor.

A law went into effect in California in 2007 that depreciation on insurance claims only applies to materials.  So the software has to ID materials for that reason also (of course you would not depreciate cleaning - regardless of materials used because the item is not replaced).  That affected those of you working the California fires recently, and any earthquake claims in the future.

I know this all sounds very detail oriented, but I have one client that is very strict on how taxes are dealt with, and insists that all estimates clearly show what taxes are allowed on materials.  Xm8 has many thousands of items in it's repair database, and if you follow the process I describe above you can clearly see what materials go into each item, how much labor, how they determined that labor, how much production that trades person is expected to do that day, etc.  And they have different methods for "new" construction vs "repair-remodel" in terms of labor efficiency.  I know some of you are laughing at this, but it is just the real world and how it is measured.  I think one of the reasons why Xm8 and MSB-Integra are so expensive is the pricing database that they have to research and support.

OK has this happened to you fire adjusters about 50 times before you put your foot down on the neck of the restoration contractor. A very hot smouldering fire and the whole house was black. You authorize a pack out and clean and in 6 weeks all the stuff comes back with a $70,000 bill and none of is worth a nickle and you only have about $50,000 more insurance left to replace all the houshold goods.  Who gets screwed now, that right the insured and the insuror.

To make matters worse all the clothing, shoes and linen were taken to a dry cleaners that works fire claims and had a $6,000. bill attached and of course the water sucker had to tack on another $1,200 for handling the paperwork. I would not pay your fee bill if you sent the file to me as an IA, BECAUSE you should have known better and I sure as hell would cut off the contractor also and would only pay him/her for the money they saved by mitigationg the loss not making it larger. In this case ZERO, but you tried hard, but you did not use the judgement of a professional adjuster.

You are not a fire adjuster until you know the differance in how it will come out, BEFORE the outcome hits you in the face. Yes you will be held accountable for trying to make a bad loss into a somewhat bad loss. It will turn sour ever time if you rely on venders, rely on your own judgement and you will get more business

"But time is so important 'on smoke losses, because staying in the house will "set" the stains in the fabric. Good night, I will sleep well.

Posted By Ray Hall on 08/10/2008 11:15 PM
A very hot smouldering fire and the whole house was black. You authorize a pack out and clean...

Yep, the error is authorizing cleaning of something that is not going to restore to it's PRE-LOSS CONDITION.

When the whole house is black, you can be pretty darn sure that the most cost effective thing is to "total" out the majority of the items, especially fabric, especially if you go through items in the closet and see "stripes" when you pull out the sleeves.  It is all toast.

I did have a small fire claim about 6 months ago, not "all black" and the downstairs simply got a little smoky.  There was an odor, and there was a slight film on the items.  That is where cleaning is OK, and in that claim it was the right thing to do not to "total" out all the affected items.  There is a fair price for doing that work, it can be predicted in man-hours x the general rate for cleaning, or however you feel comfortable doing it.  It's like any other tool, it has it's use, and sit's in the tool box until it is needed.

For those interested in fire claims, there is another thread with more info (follow the link)

You speak volumes of truth there Ray in that type of circumstance, but then there's always the other side of the coin with the more minimal type of loss.  One just hopes that you get prompt notice of the loss before it's been sitting a couple days or more, and judgement can be exercised.  Sweet Dreams!

     In a fire loss we make no decisions without the adjuster being present........period. Too many cases of " hmm,it looks ok,but It still

       smells like  smoke" has taught us that clothing and furniture really need an evaluation before we cart it off to a contained ozone

  area,clean them and then have a pissed off adjuster on our hands. I have learned the hard way,fire is a different ballgame.

   Now we put a concentration of chemical to knock down odor,thermal fog and take away scorched material........and wait for the adjuster.

Ah ha now the expertize comes out in the restoration contractor. I am qualified to tell the adjuster and homeowner what has to be done on a water or smoke claim in the restoration contractors hand book that was written by experts and adopted as the gospel by the largest estimating software company in the world; UNLESS I run into an old adjuster that has looked at thousands of fire and water loss OR I run into an non emotional person that has ordinary reasoning ability.

Do you not know adjusters put their neck on the block ever day when an insured states "repair it or pay for it". Thats what we do and we don,t chase good money down the drain with more good money. Some of us still work automobile crash claims and we all remember the first and only time we paid more to repair(or try) an automobile that it was worth.But it took about 2 dozen fire or water losses about 40 years ago to learn this lesson and I will not change. Relax Mike I will never work in up state New York, they have plenty of good adjusters in the area.

               Ray..............why the anger?  Are you the only one whose neck is on the line?

  Are you the only one who has paid his dues to learn your business?  The way you speak down to other professionals is

 arrogance,pure and simple. To call something junk science when doctors,microbiologists,health dept's,etc have enough proof

 that there might,at least,be a problem just shows a closed mind.  Do you,with your vast experience of microbiology,at least

 concede there can be some truth to some of it?  I turn down more mold remediations than I contract due to poor testing procedures

 by a "professional",whose results show the mold present to be non toxic. I don't use scare tactics,I don't rip folks off with

 crazy remediation prices,and I don't put anyone in danger by saturating their home in biocides. Hint: Use borate based product

 in addition to hepa vac and cleaning with detergent,especially exposed wood and foundation walls. Cheap,safe and NOTHING

  does a better job,as the mineral salts from the borate prevent mold growth.  Obviously,you need to care for the moisture issue

 first,as water is the problem,moisture is a symptom...........no water,no mold. Which brings us to the reason to get the water out

 asap and checking where else the water went and determine how to remove it...........just leaving it there,is opening yourself

 up to liability,especially after "cousin Joe" says" hey,there ain't supposed to be mold on the wall,get a lawyer".

  sorry,but I do whatever I can,as fast as I can to get the place dry asap. To do otherwise is insane.

The homeowners policy does not cover pollution to any real or personal property. The Homeowners policy does not cover any health issues to any person or animal in the house. The insurance companys have no worry except to investigate each loss for direct physical damage and meet each states time lines.

The policy plainly spells all this out and the courts uphold the contract language.

The united states of america in in the insurance business is called National Flood Insurance Program. The program spells out that all wet material except structual members should be removed as soon as practical. They advise ALL wet material should be discarded. Why dont you water suckers think about which strain of millions of mold spores these houses have in them after a 7 feet of dirty stinking muddy water fresh or salt. and these poor souls health concerns...... five words ..FLOOD INS DOES NOT PAY, and  Homeowners policy do not pay for testing and health concerns. Its you people who whoop and holler and get the poor lemings to leave their house.

IF ever accidental water claim had a $5k to 10k. Deductible all you leech's would be out of business in one week end. I am just trying to do my part as a consumer. (and I wonder why the plaintiff never calls me as an expert)

I do not know of any mold claim filed in the US under a Homeowners Policy since about 2003. The plaintiff bar got the word, but the white, yellow and green vans still beat the drums.

This may be the cure. Each water claim requires the INSPECTING adjuster to comment on how much the water suckers saved the carrier on each loss. This should be known nationwide and the underwriters should factor this into the states Homeowners Rates and the Deductible amount. Homeowners Insurance premium are in a free fall and something has to be done to reduce.... not increase...say you are fed up and go back to Fire & EC coverage for 1/3 of what you pay for HomeOwners. Get a DP2.

Posted By Ray Hall on 08/11/2008 1:29 PM
I do not know of any mold claim filed in the US under a Homeowners Policy since about 2003.

Are you kidding me??

Mike, there are good restoration contractors and there are bad ones and when some are bad, they are really BAD. I am a little like Ray, I have seen too many bad water suckers.

I handled a multi-million dollar loss on  a large hotel in the Orlando area when the hurricanes hit in 04 and 05. A water sucker had convinced an insured owner that he could save the owner down time, (he had no BI coverage) and could save the insurance company thousands of dollars. He moved all the furniture out, stored it in large metal containers, and shut the doors while the furniture was still wet. We, of course know how that turned out. He started his drying fans in many rooms, leaving the very wet carpet on the floors. He cut small holes in the lower part of the drywall to allow air circulation, (but no holes at the top so the air could flow). By the time the claim was assigned to me, the water sucker had destroyed all the furniture, (was covered in mold in the containers), drywall was ruined due to wicking up the walls, and the carpets were still wet with fans blowing on them. The fool had balls enough to send us a bill in excess of $250,000.00. He also turned building contractor while there and put a temporary cover on the flat roof, overlapping the cover, (which allowed rain to get in between the seams). The first thing I did was get a true temp roof put on to prevent additional damage, had the carpets ripped out, and cut the drywall 4' up from the floor.

I estimate that the moron caused an addittional $300,000.00 in damages. I don't know if the company I represented went after the restoration contractor or not, but I hope they did. That is why some of us are very reluctant to retain water suckers, as we just do not know their abilities or capabilities. From what I read of your performance, you are one of a very few who truly wish to serve their customers and consequently the carrier. How do we know the intent, ability, and capability of a water restoration contractor, can you answer that?

Tom,

        I would first check some of the associations like RIA,formerly ASCR.............at least you would know the contractor has taken

  the time to get educated about his business . IICRC has too many bait and switch outfits.........they pay a yearly fee and get certified

 to rip people off.  Ask the contractor where he got his training............Kurt Bolden's Hydro Lab in Indiana is where my staff and I have spent

 A LOT of time learning how to dry various substrate under a variety of conditions...............Chuck DeWald is another no nonsense

  school,where he teaches the Vortex Drying Method,similar to Bolden in that they want to rid the industry of the parasites that make

 it bad for the rest of us. Dri-eaz is another decent school,just be prepared for a sales pitch on their eqpt.

    All of these schools offer adjuster training in water damage as well. There is always a mix of adjusters in all our classes.

    Both sides get a chance to see the other sides version of things,which makes for a better appreciation of one another without

  the name calling.

Posted By Ray Hall on 08/11/2008 1:29 PM
I do not know of any mold claim filed in the US under a Homeowners Policy since about 2003.

Ray, I know Texas has unique policies. California still uses the standard ISO Homeowner-3 or some variation, and yes there have been endorsements that limit coverage in reaction to the "mold is gold" craze.

I work for carriers that have a $10,000 mold limitation endorsement, $5,000 and $2,500.  There are a lot of policies out here without limiting language.

MOLD 101

Mold is not covered as a "cause of loss".

Typical homeowner claims I see involve plumbing leaks, where the deteriorated (or failed) pipe is excluded, and the ensuing water damage is covered.  If water damage is afforded coverage, and ensuing mold is discovered, the mold removal is covered (subject to exclusions or endorsements that limit dollar amount  - gotta read the declaration page and policies). 

Mold removal typically means taking some sort of precaution not to spread it when removed (as you might set up containment before removing asbestos) and getting some sort of Indoor Air Quality clearance test upon completion. 

More than one claims examiner has told me that they want that final air clearance test done to confirm that the carrier has acted in good faith, and that the California Real Estate disclosure form is going to ask about mold issues if the house is subsequently sold.  The "passing" air quality test is generaly deemed necesary by those who have made an issue out of the presence of mold during a water damage claim. 

Long-term repeated leakage-seepage is always an issue, but where I work carriers often side to benefit the Insured unless it is gross and obvious.

Where I work, there are large carriers with very seasoned claims examiners that EXPECT the adjuster to be able to write an estimate for mold remediation (separate from water damage repair) so they can compare that to their 10k mold limit, or whatever.  USAA has a $2,500 limit on most of their policies out here, and there are a lot of military people at Vandenberg Air Force Base down the road from me.

Examiners expect me to know what removal of damaged drywall or cabinets would have been expected anyway from a discharge of water, and write the separate sheet to set up containment barrier, negative air, etc. for the mold related issues -and they don't joke about it.  More than one has told me flat-out to write a "standard protocol" for the mold abatement as they do not want the liability of just hacking the walls open.  We have all been screwed by $2,000 bills just to test the air, and more to set up some visqueen.

Nowadays things have settled down a bit, we have moved on.  Testing is about $650 and if the containment estimate is "lump summed" by the contractor (pulling a number out of thin air) you can find containment barrier cost per Sf, tension poles, etc. in Xm8 that I use to bring the contractor estimate down to earth.  It is a tool that adjusters use everyday.

It does not bother me at all to be around mold.  I do not personally "buy into" the health issues of mold, but it doesn't matter what I think.  Public perception has made it "real". 

I was in and out of these houses for 5 months and had no issues at all.

But you CANNOT assume that just because the NFIP does not pay for mold related remediation that this means anything at all for an adjuster who is not currently working flood.  Has nothing to do with a homeowner policy.

Again, I don't personally get ill from mold, and spent over a decade writing estimates just to throw the damaged drywall into the dumpster.  Like it or not, public perception has changed and it has made adjusting more complicated.  If you talked to claims examiners in my side of the country about mold the way you do, you would just be wasting their time - as they wait for you to write a protocol to remediate it. 

In response to reduced coverage limits for mold, the adjusters estimate focused only on mold related items is vital to the claims examiners we work for.  A lot of times they want the removal of water damaged property to go onto the "ordinary" claim estimate, that is only subject to the policy limit on the house.  That estimate would include routine steps to dry the property.

A separate estimate focused on mold remediation will include a containment barrier, Negative Air machine (typically a few days during work, add a few days for clearance testing) and one replacement filter for the Neg Air machine, Protective Equip for workers (tyvec suit), clean and sand exposed wood framing after drywall removed, HEPA vac the exposed framing (has a price for "detailed" vac) and then a lower cost per Sf HEPA vac of the smooth surfaces in the general area where the drywall was not removed, etc.  

In addition to Xm8 I gather other estimating guides, and have a fairly recent "Bluebook" cost guide that has the costs for setting up containment and doing mold remediaton.  I imagine that the Craftsman database used by Simsol and Power Claim has these items, I haven't used that price guide in a long time.

If it is a policy with a very small mold limit and it goes over, they will pay their (reduced) limit and the amount over the limit is between the Insured and the contractor.  That doesn't happen as often as you would think, and usually it can be made to work out within the policy restrictions if everyone works together.

I really like ol' Bob.  He's got good answers.

I read "ol Bob" for the pictures.  

Yeah, I remember a claim about 15 years ago where a hot water heater was leaking the whole time the Insd was visiting Europe for months. They literally had mushrooms growing on the carpet, "fur" on the clothes in the closet, and the casings were peeling off the door openings.

It was a slow-hot water leak, and like a terrarium inside with water running down the inside of windows, and spots on the ceilings like you threw $100 of coins up there and they stuck.

The place was so hammered I was there 1/2 a day measuring and scoping (for the file records - the claim was denied due to long term leak). I was breathing that stuff and had no effect at all. I was more affected by the depositions that followed, but we got a defense verdict on the denial.

Like it or not, public perception is what they are told. "toxic mold" etc. So it has made life more complex for the adjuster, but we just try to get the info together so the claims examiner can do their job. I don't discuss coverage, or if there is or isn't a health issue with the Insured. I don't discuss politics, or anything else where the person may have another opinion. Sure enough, you are going to "step in it" and wish you hadn't. Just get the info and get it done.

I have a lot of respect for Bob Harvey on any type of loss except how to work a mold claim. Bob we have always paid for mold since I started working losses. We just tore it out with the wet material and wet contents and carried all the microbes out to the dumpster on a dry surface as some of them would fall off and absent moisture the would not grow. On the ones that flew away we attacted them to the dimpster with cat nip and the neighbors cats did their thing and the flying microbes end up in the dumpster with their siblings.

I agree with USAA just give the water suckers $2,500.00 and dont fool with the negitive air machines.

OK lets change this topic and discuss the four  players  A Insured B Adjuster C contractor D Insuror. Who is hired by the carrier to carry out the assigned duties, within the contract and the applicable state law. B & C. What is the penalty for an adjuster who does not represent the carrier in a fair manner and tell the truth to the best of his knowledge and belief, and not to do anything uneithical, nor tell a falsehood. I think we should all know the answer. possible loss of license and criminal or civil prosecution. C. works for the insurance company by direct billing the carrier for the services, BUT can make mispresentaion to increase fees . Confuses insureds with fear tactics to milk $ out of a small event. MOST work is WORTHLESS and borderline criminal. And they are laughing all the way...to Vegas

OPPS do not agree with USAA now just go back to a large 40 yard dumpster. BUT have all adjusters on water and smoke break down the savings on the final report and this scam will stop.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...I have a lot of respect for Bob Harvey on any type of loss except how to work a mold claim.

Ray, I suggest you listen, and learn. 
You believe you are an expert on this subject, but I assure you that outside of your home state of Texas you are not an expert.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...I do not know of any mold claim filed in the US under a Homeowners Policy since about 2003.

I tried to be polite about this one earlier. The fact that you don't know of any mold claim filed in the US under a homeowner policy since 2003 simply tells me that you aren't working that type of claim in the states that still have mold claims.

You are not aware of them. I brought the reality to your attention, but you didn't listen.

I suspect there are still some mold claims in Texas, it is a coverage that can be purchased.  You folks don't have the HO-3 but there are sure a lot of them (or some variation) in the other states.

For you to tell me how mold claims are handled in my home state is ridiculous.   Between storms I have been doing daily claims in California for about 19 years, and listen to me loud and clear, you are wrong on this one. 

I don't get sick from mold, I don't think it is a big deal at all.  But when carriers ask for a mold estimate, there is a rather specific protocol they want followed and they didn't invent it.  The protocol comes from the Indoor Air Quality people, and I have seen enough of them to know what the protocol is going to say, "remove drywall 2' beyond visible mold"  (etc).

I happen to personally agree that the stuff should just be tossed in the dumpster, as I said earlier, that's how we used to write the estimates.  Times have changed in states outside of Texas.  If you cop that attitude when an Insurance company has coverage for Mold remediation, you are just wasting their time.  The person who writes the checks doesn't have to agree that mold is toxic, and it doesn't matter what they think, what I think, or what you think.  What matters is the coverage.  We happen to have a lot of policies that still cover mold remediation outside of Texas, and most of the ones I work are not the $2,500 limit (some of them are not restricted at all). 

I got a claim yesterday with a $10,000 mold limit.  I found water still trapped in the insulation of an exterior wall (Moisture meter) told the emergency contractor to come back and dry it out fully, and there is no mold issue.  If it just sat there, it would have become an issue.

Ray, we have some "rug-suckers" out here that will take one square inch of mold and say they need to "stop everything" and set up containment, negative air, and bring out the monkey suits.  I argue the old NY guidelines about "so many Square Feet" before it becomes an issue, and they argue about how many thousands of spores are on a square inch, and it is just BS.

We do need some sort of guidelines, for times when there is coverage, so people don't make a mountain out of nothing.  But public perception is that significant areas of visible mold is a big deal.  California tends to put laws into effect that "trickle down" to the other states, such as the Fair Claims Act, specialized gasoline, etc.  California recently made the "Real Estate Disclosure form" specifically mention water damage history and mold disclosure.  It is public reality, I don't have to agree with it.  The general public is very aware of this issue and they raise the issue when they see mold on the backside of drywall (grows there first because it's not painted).

As I posted earlier on this thread, in my rural area of California a local contractor lost a trial this year and was hit with jury awarded damages around $100,000.  That is very small compared to some mold cases I know, but it flavors how that contractor is going to approach their next water loss.  Very cautious.

That is their problem, not mine, but my focus is on coverage and writing an estimate for covered damages.  And preventing the claim from going out of control.  I am paid to control the claim, and keep it on the rails.  Honestly I could not do it without someone to professionally dry out a sudden and accidental discharge of water.  I have seen too many homeowners "start" to do that job, and it turns to mold.

I recently adjusted a loss for a "large carrier".  Insured had a $5,000 mold limit.  Water heater leaked for a LOOOOOONG time and ensuing water damage was not discovered until the insured found mushrooms growing on the carpet......This was verifiably a long-term leak.......because of mold endorsement.....carrier afforded coverage........

You know a contractor that got stuck for 100,000 on a mold case lawsuit. What does that  have to do with Homeowners Coverage. I thought you worked for the insurer of the home. Why sued who? Did the homeowners carrier sue the water sucker for wasting money on something that  is not covered or not done properly or did the Homeowners sue the contractor?

The Homeowners policy NEVER covered mold in all 50 states. I have never seen it in any policy that I have ever read. Please publish the HO-3 language that gives mold coverage. Not the exclusion that limit mold remediation to $2500. or $10,000.( and not one cent for testing) I have seen mold remediation claims in excess of $100,000 twice as much as build back. I think the examiners who are asking you to split it out are goofy.

Ray, as politely as I can, I suggest you review this thread from start to finish - and do it from the attitude of someone who doesn't "know it already".  Read my last post again.

Posted By Eric Kraft ......because of mold endorsement.....carrier afforded coverage........

Thanks for posting Eric. This thread has a cryptic title, I don't know how many are following it. But there are mold claims that are paid every day in America.

If you have a shower that gets mold on the walls over a period of time - that is not a covered loss.  That is not what we are talking about here.  "mold" is not a covered peril.  But if any of you think that it can be ignored as "ensuing damage" if not otherwise excluded (following a sudden and accidental pipe leak) you will run into some embarrassment down the road.

Posted By Ray Hall ...I think the examiners who are asking you to split it out are goofy.

Thats because you are not working these type of claims outside of Texas. Leave your attitude at the door, and please learn from this thread. If you are working this type of claim, where there is coverage, as Eric's claim above, you WILL BE ASKED to separate out the mold related items so the guy writing the checks can compare it to any restrictions to mold coverage. In Eric's case it was $5,000.

Today I looked at a mobil home smashed by a huge oak tree, and had to explain to the homeowner that after we cut the tree off the home and drop it on the ground, there is a $250 limit for debris removal on the rest of that tree.  This is no different.  Think of it as a "sub limit" (and there are still policies in my area without a limit other than the main structure policy limit).

The example I gave above of a contractor getting sued, there WAS COVERAGE for the mold remediation.  You just have to understand that concept, it happens every day outside of Texas.  The homeowner sued the contractor who was focused on mold in one part of the house, for more mold in the sub-area in a different part of the house.  As I understand it, this was beyond the contracted scope of repair, but the public jury sided with the homeowner anyway.

The point I was stressing was the aspect of public perception, and how a jury can make awards like that.  I deal with public, you deal with the public.  It's just part of the public awareness, they think mold is a hazard even if I don't, and I know you don't, and Chuck Deaton doesn't.   But Joe homeowner with black stuff on his walls, he thinks about a show he saw on "60 minutes" and what he read in the paper, and makes an issue out of it. We respond, with coverage or denial, but we have to respond.

Carriers have moved quickly to add endorsements limiting coverage to various policies regarding "fungi" and mold remediation. It is not "black and white" that all policies do, or don't limit coverages for remediation. You have to roll up your sleeves and look at the endorsements. A basic HO-3 without limiting endorsements in California does not limit coverage for mold remediation as part of the scope of repair. If there is a covered loss (pipe burst, etc) and a homeowner makes an issue about the presence of mold (or his contractor brings up the issue) most of the large carriers that I work for will allow for air testing, one of the carriers brings in their own subcontractor to do it that they have an account with.  And the scope of repair will follow the protocol to avoid "spreading" the mold. 

If it was my house I would not make an issue of it, and think it is a waste of money.  But I quit arguing against carriers in how they want to respond to alleged mold issues, it is their interpretation of the policy and their ball game.

Here's a quote from the Claims Mag article on the Mold Exclusion (click on this link to read it).

The standard Homeowners 3 form from the Insurance Services Office provided all-risk or open-perils coverage for direct physical loss to the dwelling, but contained a standard mold exclusion that was generally interpreted as excluding only damage that was caused by the peril of naturally occurring mold. It did not exclude the mold growth and damage that occurred as a result of a covered water damage claim.

It may help to look at this subject in terms of "allowed scope of repair".

Most policies are clear in terms of "Like kind and quality materials" etc.  If a homeowner makes an issue out of mold that is discovered in the course of an otherwise covered loss, the cost of that repair could escalate depending on the repair method.  Even if they use "Like kind and quality materials" after mold remediation is complete.

When carrier's respond to this issue by absolutely excluding coverage for mold remediation (as I have seen on some commercial policies in California) or putting a "cap" on the allowed cost of that scope of repair in homeowner policies, then the word "coverage" or "not covered" enters the conversation.  But if you mix it up with named perils, or "all-risk" if not otherwise excluded, then you are missing the point of Mold 101 posted earlier on this thread.

Mold is not a covered peril.  And your right, it never has been.  But in the real world of working claims in my state, it is an issue we face on a daily basis.  Every water loss has the potential to explode into a mold related claim.  The scope of repair, the method of repair is the issue once mold is discovered. 

You and I would just as soon throw it in the dumpster.  A lot of other people don't see it that way, including many homeowner carriers that don't want the liability of hacking into a wall that is full of mold without setting up containment first.  They don't want to buy the furniture in the house due to some silly allegation that it is contaminated.  That is a real example, Claims Examiner instructions to me, the Adjuster.

The NFIP does not get sued on this issue, but other carriers do.  The NFIP policy is very restrictive, no ALE, etc.  They could care less, and don't pretend to be good-neighbors or good-hands.

Well Bob we will allways disagree on this subject. Lets stop the debate and let the carrier make the decision on the proper way for a field adjuster to focus one's thinking when dealing with insureds who are misinformed on the health hazards of a house with water spills or leaks and any air quality concerns. If the appointed adjuster carries a moisture meter and does testing it does increase the culpability. As always its the principals call , the insurance carrier.

Posted By Ray Hall ...If the appointed adjuster carries a moisture meter and does testing it does increase the culpability.

How would it increase culpability to use a proper meter to see if a wall is wet, or push the pins into the (seemingly dry) sheetrock to discover that the paper on the backside of the sheetrock and insulation is wet? This week I was using my newer non-penetrating meter to find water trapped in walls, below cabinets, etc.

To me, a moisture meter is as vital as a tape measure. 

This may be my last post on this topic of very heated debate. Bob Harvey and myself are competant insurance adjusters and have a disagreement. This is the first  time in all the post Bob has made that sounds like propaganda "to me". I have never tried to post anything that was not accurate in coverage questions that I can recall; except the time I called Jim Flynt wrong on the grave marker question and when I re read the HO-3 instead of using thinking from another area and posted on this site that Jim was right and I was wrong.

This topic may help the ISO on formulation new language on the next generation of Home Owners policies. I was around when the wording"normal settlement" as changed to settlement. I remember when "seepage" eliminated thousands of claims as well as 14 days thousands of claims any millions of claim dollars that "risk of loss" never anticipated and certainly never was maintenance intended. I have just reflected this morning on the language for freezing (b) shut off water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water.

Thousands of these claims are reported in the winter. What is the real intent. For the last owner, the handyman for the mortage company or a real estate agent to drain the one, two or three outside hose bibbs OR have compressed air evacuate the whole sytem. I think it means the latter, but the lawyers and some adjusters and contractors think the former. Lets all have a good winter , but I will ask my principle, the carrier.

This language can clear up the mold debate. All visable mold will be removed, before painting. All mold on painted surfaces. Now this is safe as all the mold experts state you must contain the mold.  Stop the moisture intrusion. It will not hurt any one if its contained. Well now it seems if its in the wall space between sheets of dry wall (without any paint) or under a cabinet with miniscule amount of water on a concrete floor or a wood subfloor it will evaporate in 24-48 hours.This is contained, much better than building a barrier of visqueen and 2x4 with a zipper that breaks in two days.

And the biggest myth of all it depends on the type of mold, staccy the most celebrated toxic-deadly mold and found in ever shower stall in the world in some quantites. Who upset about bad housekeeping.

This is for only the new adjusters who are trying to get into regular property adjusting. Please remember who your principle is and only represent them. If a water sucker is called by an insurance agent or claims adjuster his /her principle is who pays him and its always the insurance carrier, unless the homeowner calls them direct, and then they get their name on a direction to pay.

I think most carriers like to know their appointed adjusters and have the utmost confidence in them "containig the loss amount" and its squashing the mold myth by the true facts.

But , I do have a question. If the base mold is 2 1/4 inch is removed and 5/8 holes are drilled in the drywall that hit the sole plate how does the air get in and the water get out. Also why does the insurance industry not give a premium reduction for all base cabinets that have a removable kick plate.  We need some fresh thinking form real pros like Steve and Steve both Ins. Co. claims managers. Even dirt up in Toranto.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...that sounds like propaganda "to me".

I agree that the mold thing is propaganda, and I don't wear a mask when I am around it. I don't believe the remediation steps are really needed, and would prefer to just throw it in the dumpster.

Just so we are clear, I am not suggesting that mold is toxic. I am doing what the carriers ask, and if you move to California and adjust day-claims here you will find yourself being asked to write estimates for mold remediation including setting up containment, etc. I am not creating the propaganda, or defending those who say mold is toxic. I am adjusting the claims.

As Dave just said, Insurance Companies that have not written a complete exclusion for this issue find themselves dealing with it. I am not making this up, and welcome replies from other adjusters outside of Texas who are dealing with this issue.

After reading this "debate" , PLEASE A CORK IN THIS SUBJECT!!! Let's move on to other subjects.

The carrier will make the determination anyway unless you are the staff adjuster handling the loss to it's finality.

I have tried to stay out of this topic but I finally have to speak up.  I've heard everyone's opinions regarding mold and I'm here to tell you that there are people who are sensitive to mold and that sensitivity can and does cause real health problems for some. 

Some years back I unknowingly moved into a duplex in VA that had been flooded during Isabel.  They were in the process of remodeling the kitchen and I was in and out of there for a week to 10 days moving small things in with no problems whatsoever.  Finally when I took possession of the place I dug in and started cleaning, only to wake up the next day with my entire face swollen and my eyes nearly swollen shut.  I went to the local emergency room, and by that time I had developed a cough and sore throat.  The doctor diagnosed my problem as a severe allergic reaction and gave me steroids and kept me overnight, to make sure my throat didn't close up completely.  Needless to say I was miserable.  I actually had blisters under my eyes filled with fluid.  It took about a week or so for all the swelling to subside, and at that point I had no idea what the problem was.   

Some days later the crew came to complete the kitchen remodel, and when they pulled the bottom cabinets out all the walls behind the cabinets were black....shall I tell you with what or can you guess? 

A later follow up with an Allergist and lots of testing found me to be highly allergic to several types of molds.  And now I am very careful when I think I'm around molds to wash my hands and face several times, use a breathing mask if necessary, and I alway have an emergency supply of benedryl handy just like someone who's allergic to bees.  Granted, had I not had my hands all over the everything cleaning, and probably wiping my face during that time I may not have been affected, but apparently the contact was enough for me to have a severe reaction.  The mold beind the cabinets may not have affected me had it stayed contained.  I don't know, but I do know I ended up in the hospital and the cause was mold. 

So, whether or not you think the issue with mold is real or imagined, I'm here to tell you that there is a very real threat to some people, just as other sensitivities or allergies effect others in different ways.   End up in the hospital due to mold and you'll think differently about it. 

        Meg,your experience is not uncommon. Something that the folks here don't get is that no two immune systems are the same.

  What does not affect Bob or myself might make you very ill..........ask any allergist,not an adjuster,and you will get the true story

 on mold and its affects on people. It is said that 98% of mold is non toxic.......it is the 2% that you need to be concerned about.

   Of the 2%, a small percentage of folks get quite ill,others get symptons of sore throat,fatigue,headaches,etc. The MAJORITY

  have no symptons whatsoever.   Attorneys have turned this into an issue,not contractors. Having said that,when my ass is on

 the line,I will do whatever needed to remediate,especially when I have an IH over my shoulder waiting for me to fail a

  clearance test.

Mike, what part of the USA are you working, and are you seeing Insurance claims that include payment for mold remediation as part of the claim (allowed scope of repair).

Posted By Mike Hogan ...Having said that,when my ass is on the line,I will do whatever needed to remediate,especially when I have an IH over my shoulder waiting for me to fail a clearance test.

When you say "IH" my understanding is that this is an abbreviation for a Certified "Industrial Hygienist" is that correct?

 I agree with you on this Bob

Posted By Eric Kraft 
...The same thing goes on here in Idaho.

Gotcha.  Like your example on the last page, Insured with $5,000 mold limit.

Posted By Eric Kraft
 ...A couple of weeks later, the claimant was complaining of a "smell" and they felt slightly ill.

Are these folks your Insured, or is this a 3rd party claimant? I have done a lot of those Claimant vs. appliance store claims. Sort of a different relationship, liability.

Bob.......I am in upstate NY,Dutchess County...........rarely mold coverage here.I get called in by companies experiencing

 "Sick Building Syndrome".......landlords,who are having issues with tenant complaints.......homeowners with sick children...realtors with listings that won't sell........

       We ALWAYS require third party clearance,no exceptions. To do otherwise would be a conflict of interest. By the time we get to

    many of the jobs,there is already a report/protocol by a third party.  The reason we do our own testing prior to remediation is that

  in too many cases the party who did the testing either did not test properly,or read the reports to their advantage,scaring folks into

 costly remediation. Case in point.............2 weeks ago customer called with "high counts of dangerous mold",tested by a remediation

 company.        The report showed high numbers for Cladosporium and Ascospores.........2 very common genera found everywhere

 in nature. We live with them everyday. The ripoff company did not do any baseline testing.......how do you know if counts are high if

 you don't have anything to compare them to?   Lots of trees,plantings,flowers,etc. all contribute to these counts.Some folks live in

 the city,others in the country................we did the testing and found that the indoor levels were less than half of the outdoor base

  samples.  No remediation needed.   btw,lawyers who specialize in environmental claims have never been busier. I belong to

 our local Chamber and was told by more than a few lawyers to "protect your ass" when it comes to mold.

 Like it or not,this is real,it is out there in the public eye and many tenants see a big payday when it comes to collecting on a

 mold claim.

Thanks for the info.

Posted By Mike Hogan 
......rarely mold coverage here.I get called in by companies experiencing "Sick Building Syndrome".......landlords,who are having issues with tenant complaints....

These are good examples of what Ray was saying, not an insurable loss. When a building doesn't ventilate properly, or has long-term moisture issues, that is rarely-never covered in California. But you get a standard homeowner claim where the toilet overflow was UPSTAIRS and the adjuster overlooked water in the wall below, or part of the wall that was covered by a cabinet, or a tub surround in the downstairs bath where "everything looked OK" that is where coverage kicks in where I live.

I go on the other side of that downstairs shower wall, usually a closet, and see if that wall needs to be opened up or have air injected.  We learn by our mistakes, and our supplements.

Posted By Ray Hall on 08/16/2008 
...But , I do have a question. If the base mold is 2 1/4 inch is removed and 5/8 holes are drilled in the drywall that hit the sole plate how does the air get in and the water get out.

A 2x4 is really 1 1/2 x 3 1/2. So the bottom plate of the wall framing is 1 1/2" tall. If the moisture in that wall is really minimal, a hole saw can cut a hole in the drywall that ventilates the wall and is still covered up by the 2 1/4 base. Keep in mind that the carpet tack strip and carpet go down as the first layer, and the base is usually another 1/2" above that so the carpet gets "tucked under" the base around the perimeter of the room. In reality, the top of that base is going to be about 3" above the slab and there is plenty of room to ventilate if holes are drilled above the base plate - the holes should not "hit" the framing.  If it's a big hole saw, most of the hole should be above the plate.  If that drywall is soaked and I am concerned about any significant volume of water in that wall cavity, or there is insualtion holding that water, I have them cut the drywall out - especially if it is going to need paint anyway.

I looked at a water damage claim today where the base was 6" tall - the point is that we need to dry out the water or the house will smell like an old Hotel, or one of Mike's old New York apartments.  There is a reason they smell that way.  Someone can spill a glass of water, no big deal.  Water running in your house while you are at work all day is another matter.

Posted By Mike Hogan 
......I belong to our local Chamber and was told by more than a few lawyers to "protect your ass" when it comes to mold. Like it or not,this is real,it is out there in the public eye and many tenants see a big payday when it comes to collecting on a mold claim.

I hear ya. And the way most people protect their "Ass-ets" is with insurance. The vast majority of homeowner claims I handle would allow for mold remediation following a covered loss, and many of them are starting to have limitations on dollar amounts but there are still some without limiting endorsements.

Posted By Rocke Baker on 08/16/2008 
After reading this "debate" , PLEASE A CORK IN THIS SUBJECT!!! Let's move on to other subjects.

Before you edited your post, you said you agree with Ray, and I respect that. Maybe neither of you are getting this type of assignment, where the Insurance company (not the contractor) is asking you to write a scope of repair for specific mold remediation to compare to a sub-limit. I have done a lot of earthquake claims in California, maybe you don't get those in Michigan. Doesn't make me a better adjuster.

If you and Ray don't think adjusters are receiving these type of assignments, you just haven't received one personally. Don't shut others out from learning about it.

Posted By Rocke Baker ...The carrier will make the determination anyway unless you are the staff adjuster handling the loss to it's finality.

I love it when out of state adjusters think they are an expert in my area. As an Independent Adjuster, I am the "Eyes and Ears" for the claims examiner who writes the checks. There are about 250 carriers admitted to write homeowner insurance in California. Maybe 10 of those carriers are large enough to have a staff adjuster assigned to my territory, the others will use an IA if they can't handle it over the phone (or rely on what a contractor is telling them).

I am in the trenches, working these claims to conclusion. If you don't want my insight, change the channel.

One loss involved an insured, the other, a claimant.  Don't envy you in CA Bob.....That's why I came back to Idaho.

This is a hypo but it will happen to Bob and many others who leave the scope of damage up to a water remediation contractor.

The house is insured for 300,000 under a DP 3. It has a 1% deductible. It is has some households goods in all rooms. The house was purchased from one brothers estate by another brother who lives in the city two hundred miles away. Two sisters still live in the town with the purchased house and have been removing items form the house several times a week.

Sister A goes buy the house late in the evening and discovers a broken pipe has put clear water in 3 bedrooms, den, living room and dining room with carpet and pad over a pine subfloor and the house is on pier and beams. She turns the water off and calls her brother and tells him of the seen damage. He thanks her and says do nothing as he will bring down a two friends this week and do some work on the house as he wants to rent it out ASAP. Next morning sister B goes to the house and see's the mess and knows the house is insured with the same agency as hers.

She reports what she saw to the agent and he recommends that the local water remediation franchise who she knows from high school and she agrees. The water contractors do thier thing remove all the carpet and pad, place fans, dehum and remove the 1x8 knotty pine base boards and send a bill to the agency and gets an agents draft for the total 2,850.00.

On Friday at 6:00 PM three males arrive with a floor sander and enough Bruce Laminate Floor to cover the carpeted area. The insured is outraged at the bill and contends he and his buds could have done the same thing in 15 man hours @ 24,00 per hour or $360.00 , six 20 inch fans at Walmart @ $13.00 each or $78.00 and mop the two bath rooms and kitchen. He is so upset he states if the bill is paid and a water claim goes on his CLUE report he will sue the agent and carrier for 10% of the market value. He also feels the alum foil between the furniture feet and the pine subfloor is out landish. Explain to this irate man you were only looking out for his health concerns, when he had none. I think insureds who can not abandon thier property have the same right to disagree with the waters suckers protocal for clear water spills

Now as far as slum lords liability claims  I work several mold claims per year and the claimants and attorneys drop the case when I read the mold exclusion for BI/PD. AND its coming ever policy will have an abosolute mold consequence exclusion. The London policys and most of the E &S have them now. It will suprise some mold adjusters, but when liability or first party health issues are excluded, the health concerns just fade away. But just keep the drums beating, mold has made me a good living for the last nine years.

I have worked in Northern California on windstorm and flood losses three time and I never heard the word mold.I did explain all wet material would be removed; except structutal timbers. I found the carriers in California were abreast of all the fads, has this changed.

Posted By Ray Hall
This is a hypo but it will happen to Bob and many others who leave the scope of damage up to a water remediation contractor.

What makes you think I leave the scope of damage to a water remediation contractor??

I am a very "hands on" type of adjuster, and will work with the Insured, or their relatives, or contractor of their choice. I am usually on site for hours measuring, scoping, and making sure the place gets dried out properly. It is a cooperative effort, toward the common goal of preservation of property. If it's a smaller loss, I make sure they don't go overboard.

1. The Insured has a duty to mitigate damage once a loss has occurred.

2. If they want to do it themselves - or their associates, that is great.

3. As Dave pointed out, the contract with an Emergency Service vendor is with the owner of the property. If I tell the Insured they need to mitigate damage, and they are unwilling to give the "OK" to a professional, and they aren't doing themselves, then they are not upholding their end of the policy. I almost never see that happen.

4. Your total amount of damage on this scenario would exceed the deductible, and emergency services is part of the claim. I would be much more concerned about the failure to mitigate damage than anything else.

Posted By Ray Hall 
AND its coming ever policy will have an abosolute mold consequence exclusion.

If they want the coverage, they will pay for an endorsement.

Once again....................this is why I like ol' Bob.

Good answers.

Thanks Larry, appreciate it. I am all for saving the Insurance company some $$, and when it happens like that scenario it's great. At the end of the day, $3,000 is going to come off the top of the claim. If the relatives can do the emergency work for a fraction of the cost, then the rest of that $3,000 deductible is going to come out of the "put back". If they do the "put back" themselves at a rate lower than a professional would charge, then the check they get in their mailbox will be even smaller, and that's OK with me.  Most people do the math, and call a contractor.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...He is so upset he states if the bill is paid and a water claim goes on his CLUE report he will sue the agent and carrier for 10% of the market value.

His upset would be with the person that called in the claim. Once a claim is reported, the agent has a duty to report it to the Carrier. The carrier has a duty to accept or reject the claim.  Someone already "drew blood" before the water damage claim hits my desk.

I have had a number of claims over the years where the Insured decides to retract the claim because they realize it wasn't a big deal and may be near, or just over their deductible.  If I see the 6 wet rooms you described, they better make their decision quickly.

Posted By Ray Hall 
...I have worked in Northern California on windstorm and flood losses three time and I never heard the word mold.

As you know the NFIP is rather specific and consistent in their position on mold, and that has no relevance to this thread. If your work on windstorms in CA was prior to about 2000 it would have no relevance to this thread. We were still throwing black drywall in the dumpster then.

Bob & Ray,

I have followed this thread and finally decided to make a few comments, although as you know they never end up being very short. I am not taking sides because I understand where you are both coming from, but I have a few experiences, one recent that might shed some new light on this topic, at least in Texas.

1.As most who read this site already know, I got into adjusting in '83 in Galveston after Alecia, but had already been operating my construction company doing remodels and some fire restorations.  My latest reconstruction job was a single family house that burned in March and I completed it in June, just before going to Missouri to adjust tornado and hail claims.

2. Over the last few weeks, I adjusted a large multi residential fire claim that ran over $600k.  This is relavant as I will explain.

Like Ray, over the years I never talked about the mold that was on the drywall after a flood, tornado, or fire. As the contractor, we just tore out the drywall and put it in the dumpster.  In Galveston, even though mold was not a dirty word back then, GAB taugt me to write the claims as water damage, not mold, even when 100% of the drywall in the house had mold after sitting with flood soaked carpet after the hurricane. That philosophy continued through Florida and through this year until I was informed that under certain conditions, that is not correct. in Texas any more.

On this large fire claim, a demolition/water restoration contractor (not a general contractor) stated that on one room, perhaps others, they would have to do mold remediation because any mold now requires it under a new law. A 2nd demo contractor said that it was not needed in this case, that it depended on the amount of mold, but I researched it anyway.  Much to my surprise, the State of Texas passed a law and updated it in 2007 (I was told) that is very specific that if more than X square feet of mold has formed on contiguous surfaces of drywall (I don't have my notes to tell you what X is), then mold remediation is required, meaning the white space suits and a sealed off room, and the drwall broken up and bagged, or by other similar methods depending on the situation.  I was told that Texas  means business on this, that they have already taken a roofing contractor to court and won for doing a ceiling replacement themselves after water damage caused mold, and they did not use any prescribed remediation methods.  They tore it off and put it in the dumpster.  This would mean that the words "mold remediation" would have to be in the claim, although mold is still not the peril.

I have not read any of my HO policies specifically to see how this type of remediation is covered, if it is at all but intend to as soon as I get the time.  However, It has been my understanding that NO mold remediation is covered on any Texas HO policy.

3. As to the "restoration contractors", water suckers as you call them, I had a bad experience with a franchisee of the largest one in the U.S.  involving the burn out in Oklahoma that I rebuilt.  The insurance company did not have anyone to call in that part of Oklahoma so I recommended the one I new about just across the border because I had used that brand name in the past as a contractor and knew of their supposed good reputation, and have seen adjusters here and on other forums recommend them.  I made the arrangements for them to take care of the UPP carry out and cleanup, including laundry and drycleaning of clothes and turned it over to my customer who got it approved by their insurance co.  By the time the job was finished, the customer was so unhappy because of numerous problems involving lost items that were never returned, even though it was on the inventory list and she had photos; they would not deliver their inventory list until about the time we were ready for a move in; they refused to talk to me because I was "not their customer" even though my customer told them to deal with me; they would not provide accounting in a timely fashion, turned the clothes over to a cleaners and refused to deal with the customer, making them deal directly with the cleaners; and refused to deliver any of their belongings until they were paid in full, not allowing any inspection of the items supposedly restored until they were paid and the items were delivered; and so on and so on. 

Obviously, I will never use that brand name again, and will be reluctant to call in any of that type as an adjuster or contractor due to this experience, at least without a detailed bid and a published price list, and a mile long list of references.

4.In response the comment that neither adjusters nor carriers let out a contract, only the homeowner does, I assume that references general contractors.  I think the intent of the earlier statement referenced carriers contracting with water mitigation contractors since insurance companies can do a direct contract for emergency mitigation, whereas they are prohibited by law from contracting with a renovation contractor to do a re-build.  As a side issue, I have often wondered how that line of business started calling themselves "Restoration Contractors" when they don't restore, they mitigate. You will never see one hanging drywall, only tearing it out. That is not restoration.  I made the mistake of naming my Oklahoma business using the word "Restoration" because that is what I do, but find myself having to explain to the insurance agents and adjusters that my company is a full fledged "rebuild" general contractor because some  seem to think that I am one of the other types, a "water sucker" as you refer to them. 

5. As to mold affecting health, I am another one that has a problem with mold, due primarily to allergies.  I too wear a respirator when the mold is very strong, and also wear it in burn outs and at other times as needed.  If I don't, I am subject to some severe allergy problems that can result in bronchitis.  I have several double carbon filtered respirators in various locations so I will always have one on hand if I need it.

Thanks Rick. The Texas mold info can be found here: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mold/rules.shtm They seem to get excited when the area is over 25 Sf

Posted By Rick Hansen:   As to the "restoration contractors", water suckers as you call them, I had a bad experience with a franchisee of the largest one in the U.S.

Yep. I think all of us have been there. My story involves a water heater that was in the garage, on an elevated stand covered in drywall that also served as a platform for the HVAC. The water heater leaked as they often do, and the "restoration contractor" worker forgot to cut open the new drywall before installing the cold-air intake vent... so the HVAC was blocked.  (the same company that did the "dry out" did the "put back").

The homeowner started to freeze (January) and walked into the garage to see if the heater needed to have the pilot light lit or something. Luckily she wasn't smoking as she walked into the garage, because the same worker didn't tighten the gas connection to the furnace. She had a puppy in the garage, and luckily he survived the gas.

Regardless of these experiences, a house that is seriously in need of dryout will require professional help.  We become more careful after getting burned.  It just causes me to be more pro-active and follow up, rather than assuming it is going OK.

This topic will just not die. In the example I gave the owner of the house thanked sister A for bringing this to his attention. (he intended to rough sand the floor and install the Bruce the next weekend, AND he was in the floor business) sister B took matters in her hands and called the agent, the agent knew he had draft authority of 5,000 and called the water suckers and you know what happened.

If the water suckers bill is paid for $3,000 a clue report will be made on that ADDRESS and all real estate tranactions for the next 5-10 years will have a black cloud. This will cloud the market value of the property, which all any investor is looking at. The named insured did not hire the water suckers and 95% of the "sucker" claims are  not authorized by the owners but the insurors agents)adjusters).

The real problem was the fee bill rates do not break out slab on grade sub floors and pier & beam sub floors. And with t&g pine floor the darn thing will dry it self in 36 hours with a little ventalation.

I HAVE NEVER HAD AN INSURED THAT WAS PLEASED, with the cost of pac out and return and cleaning with all the household contents. Never in 40 years. Its wasted money by the insurance carrier. The carrier must have the adjusters write a caption on the increased cost and why it was attempted to stop this farce. Ninty percent said they wished they had a chance to absorbe or reduce their deductible by doing the work themselves or making their own arraignments. Why dont policholders raise holy hell about these blood suckers who were CALLED by the insurance company. Or who chased the fire trucks

What makes you think I leave the scope of damage to a water remediation contractor??

I am a very "hands on" type of adjuster, and will work with the Insured, or their relatives, or contractor of their choice. I am usually on site for hours measuring, scoping, and making sure the place gets dried out properly. It is a cooperative effort, toward the common goal of preservation of property. If it's a smaller loss, I make sure they don't go overboard.

1. The Insured has a duty to mitigate damage once a loss has occurred.

2. If they want to do it themselves - or their associates, that is great.

3. As Dave pointed out, the contract with an Emergency Service vendor is with the owner of the property. If I tell the Insured they need to mitigate damage, and they are unwilling to give the "OK" to a professional, and they aren't doing themselves, then they are not upholding their end of the policy. I almost never see that happen.

4. Your total amount of damage on this scenario would exceed the deductible, and emergency services is part of the claim. I would be much more concerned about the failure to mitigate damage than anything else.

Bob,

I'm new here, but have been following the heated debate on the mold coverage issue. I am a staff field adjuster for a major carrier in California. I love the above points and I agree totally.

The attitude my current employer has with regards to handling mold is, first...determine if it is related to the covered loss and if so, remediate, and get it cleared, up to the limits. If the resulting damages are not covered...the mold will not be covered.

A lot of the time, we have direct physical loss to the structure (ex. Plumbing loss) that would be covered and mold develops during the time the loss occurred and the claim was filed. We would go to the proximate cause of loss…the sudden burst from a plumbing system…that resulted in sudden and accidental damages (no long term rot or deterioration) and afford coverage for the loss and if mold develops, would cover the remediation up to the limit (5K in our policy).

I could fight this and bring in an expert to test the mold and id the species and then extrapolate the life cycle of the species and cross reference the date of loss and then argue that it is pre-existing…turns out not to be very cost effective and ends up in court and then it really is not cost effective.   

Per the IICRC, mold can develop within 48-72 hours with the correct environmental conditions present (moisture, temperature, and food source) and losses with mold, but free of other long term damages will be covered. Attorneys here (California) have argued that a long term leak is (per most HO-3’s) a “continuous and/or repeat leakage and/or seepage,” that has been occurring for “weeks, months, or years...” Considering that mold growth can occur in 2 to 3 days, declining because of the presence of mold only is setting you and your carrier up for a bad faith suit.

Most policies that cover mold are limited, but in general the limit is used for testing, removal, and put back. I can apply both the mold and water coverage (below scenario) and split the costs under the two coverages. For example, if a kitchen cabinet is soaked and warped (beyond repair) due to a sudden loss from the hot water supply line and would need to be removed under emergency mitigation, but had developed some mold. I could remediate the mold and remove the cabinet under containment and apply the removal and subsequent clearance test under the mold limit and then put the repair for the cabinet under the water coverage…why? Because the cabinet would have been removed anyway during the emergency mitigation if the mold was not present. I would have been paying for it anyway…and in this State, a smart attorney would argue (has argued) in court that you applied the mold limit on the repair in an effort to short pay the claim/insured…bad faith? We all know our intent would not be bad faith, but as Bob has pointed out, strange things happen when you get a jury involved and yes…it makes handling claims here somewhat complex. A legal minefield to be honest.

As a former paralegal, I handle my claims as if every claim is ending up in court. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country handling day claims, but here…it’s all about limiting liability and managing your risk. Even if your policy is clear about what is excluded…case law may alter your claim handling.

When the insured files a claim on a water loss, I always offer to bring in emergency restoration contractor to dry down the home.

If the insured has not called in their own EMS contractor, it could be argued that the insured fulfilled their duty of mitigating the loss by filing a claim.  My offer is a referral, so it is still up to the insured to hire the vendor, but it is a vendor I can trust. Not the “rug suckers” that was mentioned earlier. I would like to be clear that in my opinion, a “rug sucker” would those emergency restoration guys that are out to bilk the insurance companies for unreasonable and unnecessary charges. There is a big difference in emergency service contractors and the good ones have a BIG place on my speed dial.

Along with my EMS vendors, the environmental contractors I use get calls from me on a daily basis to manage my risk in assessing asbestos abatements and mold remediations.

The point of managing the risk is really releasing an insurance carrier (whose business is insurance) of as much liability as possible in not properly drying down a home, properly abating asbestos or remediating mold. These contractors are supposed to be experts in their fields and as such, the money I spend is to make sure it gets done right.

When the insured hires their own vendors, I advise them up front that I only pay for “reasonable and necessary” costs/charges. I am an IICRC certified water damage restoration technician, so I can take the psychrometric readings, assess the equipment being set up, make sure the proper demo is being done, and the estimates being submitted are accurate. Even though I am a certified WRT, my business is being an adjuster. I am an expert in the interpretation and application of insurance coverage, not EMS, asbestos, or mold. So, I still send one of my vendors to do an assessment, write a comp bid, and photo doc the set up…in short, to manage my risk and liability (seems to be a repetitive theme).  

It may seem like a waste of claim dollars to some, but operating in California…trials are very expensive! I love preparing for a trial and putting together my docs for our attorney and during a status conference the opposing council sees the length I went to during the handling of the claim and it ends there. Trials are not won by the attorneys…they are won by the adjusters in field with the handling of their claims way before a lawsuit was even filed.

Sorry for the extremely long post…but I just wanted to make a point that yes, mold claims are covered (at least here) and as a result, it changes they way we handle our claims, despite what the policy may or my not cover.

Thanks for listening,

Sean

Sean
Very well stated 

I have been working water losses for over 50 years for insurance companies. I have always removed wet material and thrown it in the dumpster. If it has some mold on it thats good. IT is not necessary to build an air lock around wet material. A plastic sheet is not containment is BS.

I have worked 500-600 liability claims in those 50 years were a tenant was bringing a third party liability suit against the landlord for damage to their health and welfare. I have had mold opines from ever MD speciality ever DO and ever DC. All of this is junk science and never gets into court.

Why did the Homeowners policy limit "mold remediation to $5,000 including testing ?. Thats why they dont test for mold anymore. Mold is mold and just tear out $4,999.00 of wet material with mold and stay within the limit. Then the build back by the same contractor can PU all the fans and dhums. I will work any multi million mold claim in the USA and not get sued, by being the clerk of the works.

Hurricane Gustav will flood thousands of houses this week, only about 10-15 % will have flood insurance. Not one person will get sick from mold and you will hear no mention of the word, as the flood policy removes the wet material, hose down with clear water & bleach and I guarantee you it will be dry as a bone in less than 72 hours as the owners will be sleeping on cots on bare floors. No water suckers need rush in. On the first weekend hundreds of churchs will send members to muck out, clean and dry the houses so the habitats can live somewhat after a terrable disaster.

Why don,t you mold adjusters stop drinking the cool aid and let upper management handle the courthouse problems, they did not get in this position by drinking cool aid with the water suckers. Or the smoke eaters.

Thanks for the comment David...

I agree that some insured’s are not happy with the cost of the pack out/back and cleaning, although I have had several successful losses and happy insured’s in this area. I don't think it is the results of the moving and cleaning that is upsetting...it is the amount they see we spent on it.

This is nothing new to us and that being said...using the right content contractor for the job is key here. Quickly assessing the total loss and cleanable/repairable contents and getting me the estimates is job #1. The carrier I work for has instructed all their inside adjusters to kick out all claims that have a pack out/back, just to review and control the costs. We use mostly vendors to handle contents. We have some large loss content adjusters, but they a few. I have a content background, but I spend my time more effectively overseeing EMS , environmental issues and scoping/writing estimates for property damage.

Also, I feel that it is our job as adjusters to be "in touch" with the insured. Assessing them and what they may want to do. Do they want a cash out on the pack out/back and repairable items? You never know if you don't ask or offer.

If I could, I would cash out every facet of every single claim (except for water mitigation). That whole limit of liability thing again. I meet an insured and I am instantly assessing them as much as I am assessing the loss.  Is he a contractor? Does she ask all the right questions (Can I choose who repairs my home? My brother owns a dry cleaning business…etc)? I let the insured know right away, that we will obtain estimates for all reasonable and necessary repairs and cleaning and they have the option to handle everything all on their own or I can have my vendors get started on things right away.

Now as their adjuster, I inform them on the pros and cons of taking on the tasks themselves, because it does not matter to me...I'm paying off the same estimates; it is just a matter of whose name is on the check.  The one thing I strongly advise is letting us take care of the water mitigation. I agree on the above comment that this is very important.

Communication is the key ingredient to understanding the expectations of the insured and setting reasonable ones that allow you to always meet or exceed them.

Thanks for your comments folks. I am traveling out of state, and may disappear for a while.

Posted By Ray Hall on 09/01/2008 11:39 PM
I have been working water losses for over 50 years for insurance companies. I have always removed wet material and thrown it in the dumpster.

So what?

If you work daily claims with an HO-3 outside of Texas in recent years, you WILL find occasional assignments with your name on it, where the insurance company wants you to assist in determining the value of mold mitigation with a focus on their limit (I have done a lot of claims lately for a carrier with a $10,000 cap, it will vary).

Your past experience may be a hindrance if it restricts your reading and duplication skills.

A staff adjuster for a large carrier has posted his experience, adjusters from other states have posted theirs.  You ignore their real world experiences outside of your state of Texas, and talk down to us all.

Like you, I have experience before, during, and after the mold craze.  (now it is just a matter of remediation scope with some sort of "stop the bleeding at 5k, 10k" whatever.)  I have had many mold claims where that part of the scope can be addressed within a 2,500 limit.  I agree with you that it's TOTALLY OK to just throw the stuff in the dumpster.  Wouldn't bother me a bit - except for public perception, and what the insurance companies with HO-3 have determined.  Read the Claims Mag article I posted a couple pages back, follow that link.  You may not agree with the author, but that is the way most of these are handled - even if you or I aren't in agreement that it is needed.

Most of these posts are from California, but not all - you will find these claims across America and we cannot pick the claims we receive. It is not the adjusters fault for having one of these type of claims assigned to us. I worked a 4-fatal claim a couple months ago, we take what we get assigned, so stop talking down to us like we are doing something wrong for accepting water damage claim assignments - only to have the insured or his contractor freak out about areas of mold.

Your own state of Texas has laws about 25 square feet of mold requires protocols, etc., but I fully understand if the property owner didn't purchase the mold endorsement in Texas that doesn't mean insurance has to pay for it. The contractor and homeowner have to do the dance with that one. You get that scenario outside of Texas, and you cannot assume there is no coverage, or that your scope of remediation is going to fly with all the parties that have to be brought to the table when this issue is brought up.

Ray, I am not trying to pick a fight with you.  But I know from another thread you have not been using a moisture meter, and I cannot imagine doing a thorough water damage scope without a meter.  So when you go on and on about your decades of experience - I have to wonder how you can really know what the scope of repair should be without using a moisture meter (sometimes it is obvious - don't need it - whole house nuked).  Look at the example on that other thread, where I missed the water trapped under the floor.  I had a simple "pin type" probe - but later got the non-penetrating one.

You talk about 50 years.  I have to think about how within weeks of becoming an adjuster 18 years ago I got a moisture meter so I could find water trapped in the insulation, under cabinets, OR RULE IT OUT. 

It is what it is.  Please open up, and see if there isn't more to know, more to learn.  I look at moisture meters (and PREVENTING more damage than already occurred) as good service to the policy holder.   And if a pregnant wife is freaking out about a pipe burst claim with mold cuz her other kid has asthma - and the carrier says they have coverage - I will write a scope for what the carrier is willing to cover (had that one in February).  I don't have reactions from Mold, but Meg did, another CADO member did.  You go tell the pregnant mother that mold is BS and so on, I don't do that anymore.  I am the representative of the company they have been paying premiums to, and would rather not ruin the PR. 

That pregnant housewife had an extremely strong opinion on mold (I didn't tell her it doesn't bother me a bit) and the claim was handled to her satisfaction, she has a passing clearance test - and that is something she needs to sell the house later in this state.  And what the examiner wanted to achieve so they could close their file.  Bringing up the "junk science" argument is just wasting their time.

I just stay very neutral on this subject of Mold, and focus on the coverages, and take a very close look at the building.  Is it long term damage.  Did this just happen, what will occur if we just let the moisture sit under this bank of cabinets, etc.

 Ray,

I can appreciate your extensive experience as an adjuster. I am new here and do not want to step on any toes. You seem to be well respected here by other talented and well respected adjusters, but if this is how you handle things in Texas that’s great. If you came to work here in California and cut out mold and threw it in the dumpster, you would be out of work very quickly. And, yes, you and the IA/Carrier you worked for would be in court even quicker, defending your blatant disregard for protocols set up by the State and Federal governments.

The fact of the matter is, if you just cut out ALL the wet stuff here in this State, (for you, I guess that would include mold and asbestos containing drywall) and threw it in the dumpster; you would violate not only the State and Cal-OSHA regulations, which do require you wear the monkey suits and set up containment, but also Federal OSHA, EPA, AQMD, etc…as well.

Do I believe that people are dying from mold exposure…no.

Do I believe that some people can have a drastic allergic reaction to mold…yes.

Does it matter what I believe…NO. It doesn’t matter if the science is junk…it only matters what a jury will believe and award as punishment for “cutting out all the wet stuff and throwing it in a dumpster”, like you suggest.

Ray…this is not the 1950’s… things change…laws change…and surely people change. How you handled mold and asbestos then, is not the way it is handled today.

The HO-3 policy includes testing in the mold limit to control the costs for rampant “pre-testing” for spores (much different than testing an active mold colony). I agree there is no need to test for mold, especially when there is a visible colony of mold. But as Bob has pointed out here in California:

We face other challenges with respect to remediation and getting clearance for a covered mold claim. I understand you disagree with the fact that there are covered mold claims in the United States at the present time, but trust us…outside the borders of Texas, we are covering mold.

As far as being a “mold adjuster, drinking Kool-Aid…” I assume you meant to insult me as a “youngster”…or a “whipper-snapper”, who has no idea what I’m talking about. That’s ok Ray, I can take that.

As far as letting upper-management worry about the courthouse problems…In today’s claim world, upper management demands that the adjuster handle their claims properly, so it does not end up on the courthouse steps in the first place.

And yes, I agree…upper management did not get to where they are by drinking Kool-Aide with the “water suckers” or the “smoke eaters”…but they also did not arrive at their lofty positions by drinking scotch with the “out-of-touchers” either.

Well if the laws of California was written by water suckers, why don,t you send me a copy and let me see what the laws of California says about mold testing and air quaility testing. I was unaware dry wall had asbestos in California. It does not have asbestos in the other 49 states and the virgin islands and port a rico. I know the law on mold in ever state except california and I would like for Steve & Steve to comment on the California Mold situation.

How much are you mold adjusters paying the homeowners for the loss of value on their house, as the value of the house has dropped because the realtor and seller had to disclose the house had a broken pipe and all the carpet and pad was replaced, and the buyer is now risking the health and well being of his young family by moving in this house that smells fine, but "how can you be sure". That is a loss right ?

I am not insulting you two or talking down to adjusters who think your way. Someone told me once that on subjects like this hundreds or thousands of new people read these post and I think your kind is putting out propaganda on mold and I have always tried not to mislead newer people; the results is my thoughts and experience on this BS subject. I will leave it up to the readers good judgement.

I will not change your thinking, but I will influence someone who may be starting out.

Posted By Ray Hall on 09/02/2008 2:44 AM
I was unaware dry wall had asbestos in California. It does not have asbestos in the other 49 states and the virgin islands and port a rico. 

It is not unusual for a joint compound sample to come back positive on the drywall of older homes.  Usually it's not the drywall, its the joint compound on the drywall.  Not all the time, but often enough that it doesn't suprise me.  How long have you been doing property claims? I don't think the earlier post was restricted to drywall, could have been talking about old 9" floor tiles, etc.

Posted By Ray Hall on 09/02/2008 3:09 AM
Heck I have seen green mold over one inch thick on some of the thick buttshingle roof ranch houses in Northern California on the N & E side under trees. The mold was on the same roof for years, when I pulled the old wind files.Just guess what an air quality reading in the attic would have been.

Read the Claims Mag article. We are focused on covered loss (sudden accidental discharge of water type scenario) that triggers coverage. Mold is never covered as a peril.

Read the article. Read this thread - we are focused on scope of repair that is allowed - this is not black and white in most HO-3 so there have been restrictive endorsements etc. But there are wide open gaps and that is the sea we swim in outside of the Texas policies. You folks don't have HO-3.

It doesn't matter if the Insured already had issues from non-covered loss, but it can sure complicate things when there is another part of the house where coverage was triggered and "also" found mold. Please understand we are not advocating mold remediation, or defending it. I am just reacting to the claims that area assigned to me, and the expectations of the policy holder and the Insurance company.

If the carrier just said to deny everything, my job would be easier. Read that article - he didn't invent it either and is just commenting on the observable facts of claim adjusting. If you say "no mold claims since 2003" you are mistaken, and should just admit it.

Posted By Ray Hall on 09/02/2008 3:24 AM
 I will not change your thinking, but I will influence someone who may be starting out.

You may get them fired, and I am serious as a Heart Attack. Read that article, and visualize a new adjuster saying the things you are saying when a claims examiner is telling him they will trigger coverage, and the limit on this one is 10,000 for mold.

When debating an issue, I find doing your own research is the best way to come to a conclusion. That way there is no bickering and suspicion of the information being provided to you. You are on line...can you not look up the information? You can look up who wrote the legislation and determine if they were “water suckers” or not, I do not know.

I’ll point you in the right direction...In your previous post you stated “cut out all the wet stuff and threw it in the dumpster” as a result, I assumed you would also cut out asbestos containing drywall and throw that in the dumpster too.

This makes a difference because the protocols for mold remediation differ from asbestos abatement.

For mold, look up Federal OSHA and Cal-OSHA for regulations when a contractor is doing the remediation. There is no protocol if the home owner does the remediation themselves (not recommended). Again, when the insured fulfilled their duty to perform in mitigating the loss by calling the insurance company and mold is present on a covered claim, then the carrier and the adjuster have a duty to have it remediated professionally, which would require that it be done by the regulations you will soon discover. Here is a section of the article that Bob provided in his post:

The number of claims and lawsuits involving mold contamination resulting from covered water damage claims since 1999 indicates that special handling of mold issues was often only lip service and not actual good-faith claim handling. An insurance company’s knowing or willful or even negligent failure to properly handle a water damage claim is a severe breach of their duty to their policyholders.

An adjuster may be held responsible for their conduct if their negligence causes damage or injury. In the same manner, if the growth of mold is caused by the negligence or failure of the adjuster to immediately advise, offer, and assist the insured with emergency water removal and dry down of the covered property loss, the adjuster may be in bad faith under an insurance contract or liable in tort outside of the contract for causing a damage that may not be covered. In such cases, there may be a claim directly against the adjuster or insurance company, or under the errors and omissions policy carried by the adjuster or insurance company.

What this says is that I may be personally sued for negligence and bad faith if I just “cut out all the wet stuff, and throw it in the dumpster.” Why would you put yourself at financial, personal, and professional risk? 

For asbestos…in California, you can look up the General Safety Orders that requires any contractor to obtain the year of construction of the building prior to any demo and provides guidelines for when testing for asbestos is required and for who can test for asbestos. Cal-OSHA also has guidelines for asbestos. You can look up Federal resources as well, the EPA and AQMD have protocols in place for how to deal with asbestos. If you know any of today’s environmental contractors, they can provide you good information on regulations and requirements.

I can’t answer why the government does not send out inspectors for mold, nor do I care. I never said that we don’t live with mold everyday. I do not dispute that mold grows in homes all the time. 

The real question is whether the mold is related to a covered loss and needs to be addressed. I understand that there was a mold craze…I also know that as a result, today, your State’s citizens pay more for homeowner insurance than any other State…by far…It has taken your State’s government to act to help out. You make mention of how mold allergies are covered under the HO-3? I never have said that…Please re-read the earlier posts, and you’ll find that I said in a civil lawsuit, it does not matter if the science is junk, if you are negligent in handling this type of loss (which you obviously do not), you will pay for it (out of your pocket...not the policy). 

You mentioned how am I going to pay for a 40K mold loss with a 5K limit? If the mold is unrelated to the covered loss…it will be declined and if the mold is related to a covered loss…I’m not…I’ll pay the 5K limit. Hotel? If the loss is covered and the home is not habitable because of the loss (not mold), I can pay it under regular LOU…Weeks? Average remediation for mold and clearance is about 5 days.

You asked how we pay the homeowner for the loss of value because the disclosure laws…this is the reason for the containment and clearance testing. Again, please re-read the prior posts to bring you up to speed. In Texas, do you have coverage for that? Do you not have to disclose to the potential buyer that you had 5 water losses in a 6 month period prior to selling? You speak to wasting money on this and the water suckers are responsible for that…Maybe the way your State handles it’s claims is why the cost of homeowner insurance is completely out of control? 

Again…I am writing from a risk and liability standpoint in dealing with mold and asbestos. 

Your argument is that it is OK to cut all the wet stuff out and throw it in the dumpster…and I am saying that it is not…there are protocols, regulations, and legislation that agree with my position. You want me to send you this and that to prove to you my position…I would like to see where it is ok to do as you suggest. Can you point me in the right direction? Or are you going to fax me a copy of some claim magazine from 1950 that says “don’t worry about it…just cut it out and throw it in the dumpster…” 

I am concerned you are an active adjuster and do not know about asbestos in vinyl floor tiles, mastic, drywall or joint compound, etc…and yes, it is found in drywall in all 50 States depending on the age of the home.

Please research this topic so you are better informed and do not just cut everything out. Exercising your ignorance on this subject does a disservice to yourself, the insured, the carrier and this industry if you are not currently informed on these issues. 

P.S. Get a moisture meter…not having one is the reason your insured’s find mold in the walls you miss.

Bob,

Great article...a keeper for sure. Your last post had three links for articles. As good as the mold exclusion one was I clicked on them as fast as I could...then I understood! Hopefully the article will be read and any new adjuster interested on this subject can go to it for guidance .

Thanks Sean. Nice to hear from a staff adjuster on this topic. Your perspective is a focus on what the carrier's true instructions are within their own staff, and that is good info.

My perspective as an Independent Adjuster is working for literally hundreds of carriers over the last 18 years, and being amazed that so many things are done the same way (if they have the same basic policy form, patterned after the HO-3). The instructions I get from carriers large and small typically mirror your description of how to deal with this issue.

Posted By Sean Bowley on 09/02/2008
Great article...a keeper for sure. Your last post had three links for articles.

Really it's just one Claims Mag article. I kept posting the link because it is hard to see the links on this board, and I just felt like I had to repeat myself in order to be heard.

I think the author may have been a bit overboard, but the concept I walk away with is a reinforcement of our "duty of care" and the expected specialized knowledge an adjuster should have when looking at a new water loss. The homeowner may not know to look on the other side of a wall, move the boxes in the closet on the other side of that leaking bathroom pipe, but we are held to a higher standard. That article changed nothing for me, I was already dealing with those issues and it just harmonized with the reality of dealing with Homeowner claims written with an HO-3 type form.

Again, the HO-3 form doesn't "cover mold", but at the same time it doesn't restrict how you can or can't make repairs. That's where the open door let's in the Tyvek suit crew, and carriers have moved quickly to limit their exposure re: allowed scope of repair for that portion of the claim. Read the article folks.  It was written 9-1-07 so it is a fairly recent perspective.  I remember when it came in my mailbox with the hard-copy of the claims mag, wasn't that long ago.
-------------------------------------
Update:  the claims mag link went dead.  This one works but takes forever to load http://www.claimsmag.com/Issues/2007/9/Pages/The-Mold-Exclusion.aspx

With credit to claims mag here is the article, in case it falls off their site again:

BY

THE MOLD EXCLUSION

Sean & Bob,

Although I might repeat something here that I already said earlier, I am actually wanting a few answers to some generalized statements made for my education, not for arguing points.  As I said earlier, I have been doing insurance restoration since my first fire job in 1975 and still am doing so.  I try to keep up with the Texas regulations and the types of material used in this industry along with the safe handling requirements for both the construction work I do and for the claims I write. 

1.As to asbestos in drywall &/or dw compound, I don't remember ever seeing any of these products in the supply houses with asbestos, although I do know that sometime prior to 1975 asbestos was used in drywall mud. However, I never read nor heard or any prescribed procedure for testing drywall before removal nor any regulations regarding the removal of drywall.

When was compound last made with asbestos?

Where would one find any regualtions about this?

I thought I had read all of OSHA's rules and regulations regarding construction, and having dealt with federal housing standards that only references lead detection and remediation, where would an adjuster or contractor learn about this. Texas sure does not appear to have any mention of this anywhere.

2.As to mold, prior to the recent law that was implemented that I mentioned earlier (25 sq. ft. contiguous of mold) there was not any requirement that I know of that dictated any kind of remediation.  Until the mold gold breakout a few years back, there was no such thing in Texas as a "licensed" mold remediator, or whatever they call themselves. Now a contractor is prohibited from removing more than 25 sq. ft. contiguous in one room of drywall with mold without using remediation procedures, but I am unlcear as to whether a license is needed to do so.

3.As to asbestos in flooring and siding, abatement is no longer required in Texas to remove and dispose of it. Prior to 1998 (I don't know exact date), certain precautions were required and it had to be bagged and delivered to landfills that were licensed to handle asbestos.  I know this for a fact because I have owned two houses that I renovated, one with asbestos floor vinyl, and one we thought had asbestos siding, although it turned ot to be cement imitation asbestos siding.

I spent quite a bit of time (pre-internet) on the phone talking to the regulatory agencies to find out the laws and what type of remediation is required but learned conclusively that siding and flooring had been removed from the asbestos abatement regulations in Texas and could go into the dumpster without violating any laws or safety regulations.  Of course, however, I wear a respirator when doing so and have enough for the workers as well.

You mention Osha regulations.  Can you point me to the location where I will find any current requirements concerning mold, drywall, and/or asbestos remediation regulations so that I will know in the future. This topic was never mentioned by the Osha investigator/manager whom I have had meetings with concerning construction related regulations.

This is an old post that Bob Harvey brought up on a recent post but it is a good read for all adjusters on all type water claims, shich is the most type of claims in the USA that are not cat. claims.Please not note Bob and I still have the some opine. To  sum up mine, I think 3 or 4 days does response does not increase the  damage and the home owner should be givin a choce to "absorb" the deductible with their own "sue and labor implied duty to propect property after the loss".

I have met hundreds of insureds who were not given this choice. If the choice is not given the carrier has "waived the right" to apply a deductible to the loss. (my opine)

Posted by Bob H 17 Aug 2008
1. The Insured has a duty to mitigate damage once a loss has occurred.
2. If they want to do it themselves - or their associates, that is great.
3. As Dave pointed out, the contract with an Emergency Service vendor is with the owner of the property. If I tell the Insured they need to mitigate damage, and they are unwilling to give the "OK" to a professional, and they aren't doing themselves, then they are not upholding their end of the policy. I almost never see that happen.
4. Your total amount of damage on this scenario would exceed the deductible, and emergency services is part of the claim. I would be much more concerned about the failure to mitigate damage than anything else.

Posted by Ray Hall 20 Aug 2008
...The carrier must have the adjusters write a caption on the increased cost and why it was attempted to stop this farce. Ninty percent said they wished they had a chance to absorbe or reduce their deductible by doing the work themselves or making their own arraignments.

Posted by GA Adjuster 1 Sep 2008
I have heard that too, but of those 90% who said they would have done something, 90 % never would have.

Posted by Bob H 10 Aug 2008
I just had a claim go over $40,000 because that kind of work wasn't done in time and the cabinets and counter had to go. I don't care how big the deductible is, if no one is mitigating damage after a couple days, they had their chance. Someone has to stop the bleeding and if the homeowner, her husband, their relative, neighbor, or friend isn't doing it, I remind them of their policy obligation to mitigate damage and hand them a phone book.