Typical, sad mold story

November 26, 2006

SPECIAL REPORT: The Curse of Black Mold

by Tim Ragones, News 3 Investigative Reporter

November 24, 2006 - 7:53PM - BATTLE CREEK (NEWS 3) - Mold is a fact of

life, but when certain types take hold in your home, removing them is in many

ways a nightmare.

News 3 has followed the story of the Koch family of Battle Creek for more

than five years, since they first found black mold growing all over the home.

It hasn't taken that long to clean it up, but they're still fighting with

their insurance company over who should pay.

And in Michigan, who pays for the damage is one very real part of the curse

of black mold.

" And this, that's loose like this, that's all water damage, " says Terri

Koch, as she showed News 3 her home. " That's all water damage. When you see

dark

spots, that's where water soaked in. "

Home construction is common, but for the Kochs, the work going on inside and

out is a little different. They're fixing mistakes, they say, their

insurance company made.

" Farm Bureau put us through a rough ride, " Koch says, " a real rough ride. "

The ride started December 24, 2000 - Christmas Eve. A winter storm brought

ice dams and forced water under the shingles on their roof. The Kochs removed

them, but water had soaked into the walls.

" We had wet insulation inside dark, closed walls, " Koch says, " which was the

perfect breeding ground for stachybotrys. "

It was black mold. Inspectors found it when the News 3 I-Team followed them

inside the Kochs' home in the spring of 2001. But the Kochs thought their

homeowners' insurance policy would help cover any and all damages.

" You pay your premiums, you expect that policy to be there for you, " says

Koch, " and it's not. "

Not when you're talking about mold. Not since 1997 when the Office of

Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) issued a form exemption order.

" A part of that includes the exclusion of mold losses, " says Commissioner

Watters.

That state office can revoke insurance agents' licenses and impose fines,

but with exemption, it can't offer much in cases involving mold.

" Typically, what we see is mold being covered indirectly, " Watters says, " in

conjunction with other types of losses. "

Like ice damming - that's what the Kochs argued.

And in October 2003, a Calhoun County jury agreed. It ordered Farm Bureau

Insurance to pay them more than 181-thousand dollars for negligence and

trespass.

But in July 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

" And to have it turn around on us like that, it was just a brick in the

face, " says Terri Koch. " It was just such a shock. "

But News 3 looked at other Court of Appeals rulings involving mold and found

it shouldn't have been a shock. Homeowners have argued ice damming as a

cause and tried to categorize mold as a pollutant.

It hasn't worked. The insurance companies have won.

" In most mold cases it's not an event that causes it, " says Phil Yeager, who

has represented Farm Bureau in several mold cases. " It's not a covered peril

that causes it. It's something else. "

Yeager says ice damming isn't a covered event under most homeowners'

policies because it doesn't cause any noticeable damage.

" The damage that occurred to the Kochs' home occurred in their efforts to

get rid of the ice damming and the ice dam situation, " Yeager says. " And that

caused damage to the structure. "

But the Kochs' attorney says Farm Bureau took months to fix the damage. He

says it was no different than another negligence case where an insurance

company tried to stop a water leak, but spread mold by tearing open a bedroom

wall.

In that case, the Court of Appeals ruled for the homeowner.

" I think it's a distinction without merit, let's put it that way, " says Van

Hatch, the Kochs' attorney. " They're both equally bad. "

But this summer, the state Supreme Court decided not to review the Kochs'

case.

" We knew then it was over, " Koch says. " You don't go back after that. It's

done. "

The mold was gone, but the legal battle had left the family bankrupt. Since

this started, Farm Bureau had doubled its homeowners' insurance premiums in

Michigan, from about $52 million to more than $122 million. Now the company

is trying to get back court costs from the Kochs - about $55,000.

It's a family that's just trying to make their home liveable again.

" The only thing we have left is each other and they're still coming back for

more, " Koch says.

A federal bankruptcy court judge will decide if Farm Bureau can collect on

those court costs.

Farm Bureau's attorney says the industry has shifted since the Koch case

began. Some homeowners' policies now include limited coverage for mold damage,

anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000.

November 26, 2006

,

I think your comments are accurate. And I also think that welfare has not

always been good for people. For some, I think it has been an en abler, that

has caused a self perception of low self esteem and little worth to society.

It is not right that some children who have grown up on welfare, as adults

continue on welfare. For these individuals, welfare has been a detriment,

rather than a benefit, in my opinion.

But, to pass a law that welfare is only allowed for six months, is not

correct either. Some, who have been productive citizens or who are doing the

best

they can do sincerely need welfare to survive.

It seems to me, a more logical approach would be to say that if you are one

who has been on welfare for 5 or more years of your life, you have 6 months

left. If at the end of 6 months, you cannot justify why in 5 years time you

have made no progress toward self sustaining, then you are off welfare and on

your own.

Seems to me that this would be a more fair way to do it. It would help

those who need to stay on and help those who need to get off.

Sharon

This comment just made me think of a new law they are trying to pass here in

Michigan. I have heard others commenting on it, and their understanding is

the same as mine. Michigan is trying to pass a law, where you can only collect

welfare for 6 months, and 6 months only. I can understand this to a point.

Our understanding is it does not effect the elderly. If someone is capable of

working and just collects because they don't want to work then they should

have a cap on it. These people should be working. Or someone who just

continues to have more children to get more money. But, what about sick people?

What

about people w/sick kids who have to take care of them? What about people who

have lost everything because of an unfortunate event in their lives, and

takes longer than 6 months to get on their feet again? People who abuse the

system make it bad for those who really need the system. Hopefully, they will

look this law over and take all this into consideration. But, from what it

sounds like they are not going to. The one commercial I heard on it said, " this

will only allow for someone to collect welfare for 6 months no longer, it will

effect everyone on welfare. " It in some ways it really breaks my heart for

those that REALLY need it.

November 26, 2006

There is a law currently winding its way through the legislative process

which would make the cost of medical damages lawsuits even more prohibitive

for the plaintiffs. Basically, it would make it so that in all cases of

medical injury, the insurance comanies that had paid claims in the past for

the injuries would get first dibs at any money recovered for the past or

future cost of the injuries. So, if someone had had medical insurance over a

period of time that they were suing for, and the medical 'insurance'

companies had paid a portion of that cost, that company would be reimbursed

at 100% off the top of any award. If the award was smaller than the amount

that the lawsuit award had paid, the plaintiff could end up owing money

because the lawyers portion of the lawsuit award would not be counted.. That

money would go to the insurance companies. Kind of like the banks getting

paid first out of Katrina damage awards.. the amount left over would then be

the award, but the lawyers third or 40% would be taken out of the entore

recovered award...

So, I guess the lesson is that if you sue, you have to sue for the entire

future cost of your illnesses, and lost wages, and then some, because the

chances of the insurance company wanting their cut off the top is pretty

high and you could easily end up with nothing left to cover your future

medical costs or even owing extra money.

But I guess that is the whole idea.

The idea of this is to discourage people from suing for medical damages

under any circumstances.. nomatter how badly they are injured, its their

tough luck, I suppose, and also to discourage lawyers from taking the cases.

I don't know the number of this bill, but I read about it last year on the

ATLA website.

Has anyone else notice this incredible vengeful streak coming out in laws

over the last few years? Its almost as if there are some real unresolved

issues there in some of those lawmakers and they want to punish normal

people for not being miserable like them.. Or SOMETHING..

God help us..

--------------

On 11/26/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> SPECIAL REPORT: The Curse of Black Mold

> by Tim Ragones, News 3 Investigative Reporter

> November 24, 2006 - 7:53PM - BATTLE CREEK (NEWS 3) - Mold is a fact of

> life, but when certain types take hold in your home, removing them is in

> many

> ways a nightmare.

>

> News 3 has followed the story of the Koch family of Battle Creek for more

> than five years, since they first found black mold growing all over the

> home.

> It hasn't taken that long to clean it up, but they're still fighting with

> their insurance company over who should pay.

>

> And in Michigan, who pays for the damage is one very real part of the

> curse

> of black mold.

>

> " And this, that's loose like this, that's all water damage, " says Terri

> Koch, as she showed News 3 her home. " That's all water damage. When you

> see dark

> spots, that's where water soaked in. "

>

> Home construction is common, but for the Kochs, the work going on inside

> and

> out is a little different. They're fixing mistakes, they say, their

> insurance company made.

>

> " Farm Bureau put us through a rough ride, " Koch says, " a real rough ride. "

>

> The ride started December 24, 2000 - Christmas Eve. A winter storm brought

>

> ice dams and forced water under the shingles on their roof. The Kochs

> removed

> them, but water had soaked into the walls.

>

> " We had wet insulation inside dark, closed walls, " Koch says, " which was

> the

> perfect breeding ground for stachybotrys. "

>

> It was black mold. Inspectors found it when the News 3 I-Team followed

> them

> inside the Kochs' home in the spring of 2001. But the Kochs thought their

> homeowners' insurance policy would help cover any and all damages.

>

> " You pay your premiums, you expect that policy to be there for you, " says

> Koch, " and it's not. "

>

> Not when you're talking about mold. Not since 1997 when the Office of

> Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) issued a form exemption order.

>

> " A part of that includes the exclusion of mold losses, " says Commissioner

> Watters.

>

> That state office can revoke insurance agents' licenses and impose fines,

> but with exemption, it can't offer much in cases involving mold.

>

> " Typically, what we see is mold being covered indirectly, " Watters says,

> " in

> conjunction with other types of losses. "

>

> Like ice damming - that's what the Kochs argued.

>

> And in October 2003, a Calhoun County jury agreed. It ordered Farm Bureau

> Insurance to pay them more than 181-thousand dollars for negligence and

> trespass.

>

> But in July 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

>

> " And to have it turn around on us like that, it was just a brick in the

> face, " says Terri Koch. " It was just such a shock. "

>

> But News 3 looked at other Court of Appeals rulings involving mold and

> found

> it shouldn't have been a shock. Homeowners have argued ice damming as a

> cause and tried to categorize mold as a pollutant.

>

> It hasn't worked. The insurance companies have won.

>

> " In most mold cases it's not an event that causes it, " says Phil Yeager,

> who

> has represented Farm Bureau in several mold cases. " It's not a covered

> peril

> that causes it. It's something else. "

>

> Yeager says ice damming isn't a covered event under most homeowners'

> policies because it doesn't cause any noticeable damage.

>

> " The damage that occurred to the Kochs' home occurred in their efforts to

> get rid of the ice damming and the ice dam situation, " Yeager says. " And

> that

> caused damage to the structure. "

>

> But the Kochs' attorney says Farm Bureau took months to fix the damage. He

>

> says it was no different than another negligence case where an insurance

> company tried to stop a water leak, but spread mold by tearing open a

> bedroom

> wall.

>

> In that case, the Court of Appeals ruled for the homeowner.

>

> " I think it's a distinction without merit, let's put it that way, " says

> Van

> Hatch, the Kochs' attorney. " They're both equally bad. "

>

> But this summer, the state Supreme Court decided not to review the Kochs'

> case.

>

> " We knew then it was over, " Koch says. " You don't go back after that. It's

>

> done. "

>

> The mold was gone, but the legal battle had left the family bankrupt.

> Since

> this started, Farm Bureau had doubled its homeowners' insurance premiums

> in

> Michigan, from about $52 million to more than $122 million. Now the

> company

> is trying to get back court costs from the Kochs - about $55,000.

>

> It's a family that's just trying to make their home liveable again.

>

> " The only thing we have left is each other and they're still coming back

> for

> more, " Koch says.

>

> A federal bankruptcy court judge will decide if Farm Bureau can collect on

>

> those court costs.

>

> Farm Bureau's attorney says the industry has shifted since the Koch case

> began. Some homeowners' policies now include limited coverage for mold

> damage,

> anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000.

>

November 26, 2006

The laws are there to help the wealthy IMOP. When we first lost everything in

2002, we didn't want to claim bankruptcy. I worked day and night to save what

credit we had left. I was able to work w/the credit card companies to make

deals and pay those off, w/the help of family. So we could one day get a home

again. This would have been 2003. Well I got everyone paid off. Then would

you believe in 2004 they sent me a 1040 or something like that, claiming I made

money because they gave me a break on the final bill. So, I made a deal w/them.

Paid them off. Had to pay income tax on the amount they let me walk from. So,

for the next couple of years I had to pay that off too to the government. Geez.

If I had the money to begin w/I would have just paid the full amount. Seems

like the laws get you one way or another. Very hard for any of us to get back

on our feet.

Then you go to court, win, and have pay some of that back now. Hmmmmmm, makes

you wonder. Who would have ever thought. Well, we know who thought that one

up.

Re: [] Typical, sad mold story