Forums

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.