Forums

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.