Re: Re: My Latest Mold Headache...

[Guest guest]

Vince,

I admire your being up front and

acknowledging your limitation unlike many others. With all due respect the

information you offer is what is basic and taught in the inspector’s 1,

2, or 3 day courses or from labs offering its certifications. As a CIH I would

expect you to offer more investigative means beyond simple basic information,

i.e particle trajectory, sampling locations are factors, and why samples may

not be as reflective of the environment due to sampling limitations and/or the

lack of knowledge and experience required by the investigator, etc. It would be

nice to see the lab CIH’s response to these areas. It would be

appreciated if you could tell us about why the same sample could be sent off to

10 different labs and get 7-10 different results. Is there going to be

standardizations in the future, etc?

Also, wood can become contaminated in any opportune

water damaged building not just in advanced cases.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Vince Daliessio

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008

9:25 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: My Latest

Mold Headache...

Hi Will,

I am a CIH working for a well-known mold lab (though mold is not my main area

of practice or expertise, to say the least). Mold sampling and other

methodologies such as microbial VOC sampling have their place in the toolkit of

any IAQ professional, but nothing can substitute for experience and common

sense.

Particularly in stick-frame residences, we know the root cause (water), we know

the food source for the microbes (drywall paper, wood in advanced cases), and

we know the effects (smells, symptoms) as well as the desired outcome (no

smells, no symptoms). No amount of sampling is going to change these basic

facts.

Where mold sampling and other modalities are most useful is in screening for

mold activity, and in looking for mold activity in " hidden " areas

within walls, above ceilings, in utility chases, return plenums, etc, where the

only alternative is destructive inspection.

Vince

[Guest guest]

Hello Will,

Well said. Poor workmanship and low ethics are everywhere. A con for all occasions. Did you read "Freakeconomics"? He provides an interesting study of teachers cheating to get raisesand realtors taking advantage of their clients, pushing for too low pricing to move sales fast.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of midsouthbuildersSent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:27 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: My Latest Mold Headache...

Bob, not to worry. I know smoke when I see it. Hardly a week goes by that some sales genius doesn't tell me I am either going to kill someone or maim them for life if I don't buy their product/service. The mold guys don't have a corner on that market... yet...Will> > > > > I am a builder and as such, no stranger to mold contamination. We just > finished a large custom home and within three weeks of occupancy, the > new homeowner was complaining about musty odors. Recognizing that we > could be dealing with mold, I suggested they find a mold inspector and > we would pick up the bill.> > I show up about the same time the mold "expert" is completing a few air > samples. He states "these will tell us if there is a problem". I state, > I can already tell you there is a problem because I can smell it.> > The "expert" scurries back to truck promising results in three days. I > walk back in to the house and simply follow my nose to the laundry room > where I find a leaking washer water hose. Turn off water, pull washer > away from wall, and presto - mold.> > Two days later, mold is removed. Same day a call from the "expert" says > the test show nothing significant going on so it must be the HVAC > system. I thanked him for his time and hung up.> > I guess my question is - is there such a thing as a mold "expert"? > Cause I think I could be one...> > Will> > > > > > > > _____ > > Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL> <http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016>> Travel Guides.>

[Guest guest]

Sam:

In response to your question, and in my opinion......If the homeowner has more credible/experienced people find and determine causation for a defect attributed to actions of the builder/contractor, and the builder/contractor fails to perform equally, the homeowner has probable cause to take action against the contractor. Also, if the homeowner has given the builder/contractor first rights to correct a defect when presented with credible evidence of causation and warranted repair, coupled with the homeowner’s fiduciary duty to the mortgage holder (the bank) to maintain the asset (if you don’t believe me, read your loan docs), at some point the homeowner must proceed with mitigating the defect and damages thereof. The homeowner should give the contractor reasonable first rights to correct a defect; in some states it is required. If the contractor fails to perform, then the homeowner is faced with several possibilities....do nothing, pay for repairs out of their pocket, file a claim with their insurance carrier, pursue civil litigation, or a combination thereof. At this time, the homeowner should consult counsel. Civil action against a builder/contractor may be a reasonable approach to get action; but civil action is expensive (at least $20K) and slow (6-months to 2-years, or longer). Can a $5,00 to $10,000 small claims action suffice? This said, recognize that some builders (they will remain nameless), rather than supervising their subs and improving product quality, instead purchase insurance policies to cover all post-construction claims. Thus, in many cases the builder/contractor will tender your claim to their insurance company (so they can walk away) and you will be fighting a seasoned insurance company. (I find this to be one of the ills of the residential construction industry.)

Homeowners suing builders/contractors are happening a lot lately because the housing boom allowed a lot of piss-poor product to be constructed; and more often than not, I find that the root cause can be attributed to poor on-site supervision and/or lack of proper sequencing. Site supervision and sequencing are clearly the contractor’s responsibility, and just because the contractor has more projects on-going that what he can reasonably control, is of no excuse. It represents a reasonable action if the defects are in fact very valid. This said, it should be understood that one can get very nit picky and I often see construction defect claims include all sorts of trivial $10 repairs; thus clouding the real significant issues. In my opinion, nit picky little things often give the other side fodder for argument, whereas those claims that focus solely on big significant issues often brings the defendant to their knees and they will often settle to avoid trial and looking like fools.

’s perspective on litigation......The side with the least amount to explain-away, typically prevails.

Don’t bring-up issues that you have to explain-away or explain at all. Let facts of the big-ticket issues stand on their own merits, and settle out of court. Trials are typically where a lot of explaining is done by both parties, and trials get really expensive real quick!

For what it is worth....

,

Thank you for this clarificartion. What in your opinion is the situation of liability when the reverse is true, that the builder/contractor keeps bringing in unqualified people that make matters worse and then the homeowner finds the more credible people to locate and document and eventually fix the problems?

Thanks again,

Sam

Geyer wrote:

You are the builder! Thus, as the builder you have liability, embracing it or not, regarding your product. You cannot escape responsibility AND liability.

You, as the builder, need to bring in your experts!