The 'Mold Monster': Myth or Menace?

[Guest guest]

Although several articles by our firm were recently posted on this

website, one particularly informative article that summarizes the

current state of the science on molds was overlooked. This article

entitled " The 'Mold Monster': Myth or Menace? " (published in the

January 2001 issue of Mealey's Mold Litigation Report) is attached.

The 'Mold Monster': Myth or Menace?

By Sweeney and Sheri A. Mullikin

An " epidemic " of mold claims is indeed sweeping this country. But is

it fueled by any new or different exposures to mold or any new or

different health effects from mold exposure? Not according to the

available scientific data.

In December 2000, two former apartment residents filed suit in

Washington against the owner of the large complex where they had

lived, claiming that deadly mold growing in their apartments made

them seriously and chronically ill.1 In September 2000, a Northern

California jury awarded a 96-year-old man $500,000 in economic and

emotional distress damages and $18 million in punitive damages after

he sued Allstate, his insurance carrier, for refusing to pay for mold

remediation and related repairs in his home.2 Last year,'after

finding a Delaware apartment building owner and property management

company negligent, a jury awarded a former resident over $1 million

in personal injury damages.3 The primary culprit in this small

sampling of " sick building " cases? Mold.

Only a handful of mold cases can be found prior to 1990, and most of

these early cases were limited to California.4 Only a few early mold

cases were filed outside of California.5 Rarely did the media

publicize these cases or stories on the alleged harmful effects of

mold.

During the 1990s, however, mold litigation began gaining momentum

across the entire country6 and the media and public took notice. Now

it is almost impossible to follow local or national news without

learning about new mold claims being made by building occupants

including employees, homeowners, apartment tenants, parents, and

school children.7 48 Hours, Oprah, 60 Minutes, Newsweek, and Business

Week are a few of the media moguls that have recently featured

stories on this accused " menace. " 8 Even the world wide web has been

inundated with websites and bulletin boards devoted exclusively- to

the growing " epidemic " that is facing this nation - mold

contamination and " sick buildings. " 9 Personal injury lawsuits related

to mold exposures are becoming so common that even Mealey's has

decided to jump on the bandwagon by devoting an entire monthly report

to coverage of these lawsuits.

Even the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

( " NIOSH " ) has " documented " the recent mold " epidemic " in this

country. Since the 1970s, NIOSH has conducted studies to identify

sources of poor indoor air quality. In the 1970s and 1980s, mold was

identified as the primary cause of poor indoor air quality in only

five percent (5%) of the 500 buildings NIOSH examined. In the 1990s,

mold was identified as the primary cause of poor indoor air quality

in 35-50% of the buildings studied.10

This recent hype about mold contamination has provoked some to ponder

the reasons for this emerging phenomenon. Is this country suddenly

experiencing an " epidemic " of indoor mold contamination and mold-

exposure-bred diseases and if so, why? Has some change in our

environment or our ability to prevent or remediate water incursion

prompted this mold invasion and if so, what change? But if this is

not a new problem, why did the problem go unnoticed for so long? A

basic understanding of the science of molds is necessary to answer

these questions.

Back To The Basics

Molds are simple, microscopic fungi that grow on surfaces of objects,

within pores, and on deteriorated materials. Molds are needed to

break down dead material. Mold spores are generally very tiny and

lightweight; this allows them to become airborne where the spores can

be inhaled.11

Molds are commonly found everywhere - outdoors and indoors, on

surfaces and in the air.12 Much of the mold found indoors comes in

from the outdoors. For example, mold spores can enter a building

through open doorways and windows; through heating, ventilation, and

air-conditioning ( " HVAC " ) systems; and on people, pets, and other

things entering the building.13 Therefore, indoor mold types and

concentrations are primarily14 a function of outdoor molds.

The following conditions are generally necessary for mold growth to

occur: 1) a temperature range above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and below

100 degrees Fahrenheit, 2) a nutrient base (i.e. dust, soil, leaves,

wood, and paper), and 3) moisture .15 The following sources or

conditions may promote mold growth in indoor environments: leaky

roofs, 16 windows,17 doors,18 balconies and decks,19 air

conditioners,20 and plumbing;21 construction defects;22 flooding;23

damp basements or crawl spaces;24 faulty landscaping;25 backed-up

sewers;26 high humidity and humidifiers;27 HVAC systems;28 combustion

(fuel-burning) appliances that are not exhausted to the outdoors

(i.e. furnaces, stoves, water heaters, dryers, and fireplaces);29 and

wet or water-damaged building materials such as wet cellulose

materials (i.e. paper, paper products, ceiling tiles, wood, and wood

products).30

Why All the Hype?

Indoor mold exposure does not always present a health problem.

Everyone is exposed to mold on a daily basis - both indoors and

outdoors - but few people ever develop health problems because of

this daily exposure.31 In fact, mold spores can actually have

beneficial uses. For example, it is common knowledge that penicillin

is an antibiotic that is made from Penicillium32 and certain molds

are used to ripen some cheeses including Brie and Roquefort.33

Molds, however, may effect human health in a variety of ways. These

possible health effects usually fall into one of three categories.

First, some individuals (generally those that are genetically

predispositioned) may experience allergic responses from inhalation

of the mold spore itself, which can be an allergen.34 These

reactions, including allergic rhinitis (hay fever), asthma, hives, or

hypersensitivity pneumonitis, are the most common health problems

associated with mold exposure.35

Second, inhalation of some mold spores may cause an infectious

response such as aspergillosis or histoplasmosis. These infectious

responses are relatively rare, however, and occur primarily in

individuals who suffer from a compromised immune system (i.e.

chemotherapy patients, HIV/AIDS patients, the elderly, and neonates),

not in healthy persons .36

Finally, it has been theorized that inhalation of toxins, mycotoxins

and volatile organic compounds, produced by certain molds (i.e.

Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Stachybotrys) may produce toxic

responses such as disruption of cellular function and interaction

with DNA (including aflatoxin-induced cancer) in individuals.37 At

this time, although research is currently underway, there is little

information on the potential toxic effects of chronic, low dose

inhalation exposures, the type of exposure that occurs in indoor

environments.38

Only a handful of studies have examined the potential toxic health

effects from inhalation of mold toxins or toxin-producing molds. Many

of these studies were animal studies, not human studies; therefore,

the results of these studies do not provide definitive evidence of a

causal connection between mold exposures and human illness.39 In

addition, many of these animal studies were designed to measure acute

effects at high exposure levels, not chronic, low dose exposures that

are more typical in indoor environments.40 Researchers have also

analyzed case reports in an attempt to understand the potential toxic

effects from inhalation of molds; however, these reports cannot be

used to establish causation and like animal studies, many of these

cases involved high dose exposures, which are uncharacteristic in

indoor environments.41 Only a few epidemiological studies have

investigated the relationship between inhalation of molds and mold

toxins in indoor settings and human illness.42 Although some of these

studies claim to show an association between inhalation of mold

toxins and potential toxic health effects, many of these studies have

been criticized because the studies lack adequate data to support

this claim and suffer from various design problems.43

Researchers are still trying to understand if and how certain mold

toxins impair immune systems and the dose-response relationship

between exposure to airborne mold toxins and subsequent illness.

Researchers are also studying the potential human health effects from

exposure to combinations of indoor contaminants including

environmental tobacco smoke; volatile organic compounds emitted from

products such as carpet, countertops, and paint; carbon monoxide;

mold toxins; and mold spores.44

The lack of replicated epidemiological studies on the potential toxic

health effects associated with inhalation of indoor molds has not

stopped legal claims against building owners, property management

companies, and employers demanding thousands, millions, and even

billions of dollars in damages because of allegations that molds

caused various health problems. Lawsuits involving Stachybotrys are a

prime example of this phenomenon.

Although Stachybotrys Chartarum, also known as Stachybotrys Atra, is

a relatively uncommon type of mold,45 it is probably the most talked

about mold at this time. Because Stachybotrys requires constant

moisture for it to grow,46 areas with excessive humidity, water

leaks/damage, condensation, and those subject to temperature

fluctuations are ideal conditions for Stachybotrys growth.47

Stachybotrys may also be found growing on material that has a high

cellulose and low nitrogen content such as wood and paper products

including fiberboard, drywall, ceiling tiles, wallpaper, gypsum

board, sheetrock wall board, paper, dust, lint, hay, and straw.48

Stachybotrys is capable of producing the chemical trichothecene.49

The toxic effects of trichothecene were first reported in the 1920s

in Russia where researchers noted severe morbidity and mortality in

cattle and horses that ingested hay contaminated with this mold.50

Cattle and horses suffered from severe skin and mucous membrane

inflammation, bleeding disorders, conjunctivitis, fever, and upper

and lower respiratory disorders.51 Exposed farm workers complained of

dermatitis, bloody rhinitis, cough, fever, and severe chest and upper

respiratory tract infections.52

Reports of health effects from Stachybotrys inhalation are limited

primarily to case reports and animal studies instead of results from

well-designed, human, epidemiological studies.53 Trichothecenes were

originally studied in animal models because of concern that they

might be used as agents of biological warfare.54 Recent animal

research has found that trichothecenes are potent inhibitors of DNA,

RNA, and protein synthesis.55 Animals injected with these mold toxins

have also exhibited necrosis (death of cells) and hemorrhage within

the brain, thymus, spleen, intestine, lung, heart, lymph nodes,

liver, and kidneys.56

Some human studies have focused on a causal link between Stachybotrys

exposure and acute idiopathic pulmonary hemosiderosis (bleeding

lungs) in infants. Until just recently, it was believed that

Stachybotrys sickened and/or killed at least ten Cleveland area

infants, in the mid-1990s, who lived in water-damaged buildings.57

The infants died because of pulmonary hemosiderosis.58 Just

recently, however, in March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention concluded that there was not enough evidence to link

Stachybotrys to these infants' illnesses and deaths.59

The results from these human and animal studies are inconclusive at

this time because of conflicting and insignificant findings and study

design problems resulting from lack of control groups and confounding

variables.60 As a result, the human health effects related to

Stachybotrys remain poorly defined.61

Although much of the current hype about Stachybotrys and other common

indoor molds is still unsubstantiated, detection of Stachybotrys and

other molds in indoor environments has lead to the closure of office

buildings and schools, and has prompted highly-publicized class-

action litigation against individuals such as building owners and

construction companies.62 Health officials have issued policy

statements and guidelines regarding the toxic effects and remediation

of indoor molds.63 But health officials have not established

objective exposure guidelines because " the point at which mold

contamination becomes a threat to health is unknown " due to the lack

of supporting epidemiological research.64 For example, in 1986 the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( " ACGIH " )

attempted to provide exposure standards for molds. In their 1986

guidelines, ACGIH suggested that the presence of any one mold species

exceeding 500 CFU/m1 in an office workspace was indicative of a

building-related source and was in need of remedial action.65 ACGIH

also stated that a ratio of indoor/outdoor mold levels exceeding .33

was considered to be excessive in mechanically ventilated office

buildings.66 But ACGIH subsequently deleted any reference to these

guidelines in their 1987 and 1989 updates because of the lack of

scientific data to support these initial guidelines and the

difficulty in interpreting results inherent in bioaerosol sampling.67

Since then, ACGIH has refrained from establishing new exposure

guidelines.

Conclusion

The ubiquitous nature of molds suggests that mold contamination is

not a new problem. Moreover, there is no information to suggest that

indoor mold contamination is more prevalent today than in years past.

The leaky roofs, flooding, and wet or water-damaged building

materials that are often responsible for breeding molds are not new

problems. Nor has science established that this country is suddenly

experiencing an epidemic of indoor mold-exposure bred illnesses,

because science is not even sure if and what human health effects are

associated with mold exposures.

So what is generating all of these mold claims? A combination of

forces are likely culprits - an increased awareness/ concern on the

part of the general public of the possible health effects of mold

exposure in the home and workplace, a readiness on the part of

certain health care providers to attribute an individual's non-

specific symptoms and illnesses to possible mold exposures, and the

aggressive prosecution of claims in the absence of hard scientific

evidence of causation.

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

----------

ENDNOTES

1. See Toxic Mold Sickens Apartment Residents; Lawsuit Filed Business

Wire, Dec. 8, 2000.

2. See v. Allstate Ins. Co. No. CIV-S-00-907-PAN (E.D. Cal.

verdict Sept. 29, 2000).

3. See Stroot v. New Haverford Partnership- No. 95C-05-074-HLA, 1999

WL 753916 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 1999).

4. See, e.g., Holbrook v. Barratt American, Inc. No. 43-95-29 (Orange

County, Cal. April 22, 1988) (verdict awarding plaintiffs $30,000 for

respiratory infections, allergies, and aggravation of diabetes and

hypertension allegedly caused by mold growth related to roof leaks

from negligent construction); v. Kennedy No. 610643-8

(Alameda County, Cal. Super. Ct. 1987) (settlement awarding $33,000

to tenants who alleged that they suffered emotional distress because

roof leaks resulted in extensive mold and mildew contamination);

v. Lakeside Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 2 Cal. Rptr.2d

796 (Ct. App. 1991) (affirming summary judgment for defendant

condominium association in 1986 case alleging that its negligence in

failing to repair and maintain the plumbing system in plaintiff's

condominium caused plaintiff to suffer allergies, asthma, and immune

dysregulation); Martensen v. S & S Constr. Co. No. 30-58-07 (Orange

County, Cal. Dec. 9, 1983) (verdict awarding $125,000 to three

plaintiffs claiming emotional distress, pre-existing allergies,

pneumonia, and asthma from mold growth caused by water seepage in

their family room).

5. See, e.g., Washington Courte Condominium Ass'n-Four v. Washington-

Golf Corp., 501 N.E.2d 1290 (111. App. Ct. 1986) (granting

defendants' motions to dismiss in 1984 construction defects case

seeking medical costs for allergies allegedly caused by mold growing

on the walls of plaintiff's condominium unit); Chenniliaro v. Kaufman

& Broad Home Sys. of La., Inc. 636 So.2d 246 (La. Ct. App. 1994)

(amending and affirming a jury verdict in a 1988 products liability

case alleging personal injury and property damages from mold growth

in a mobile home); Strickland v. Cousens Realty, Inc. 484 A.2d 1006

(Me. 1984) (affirming a $10,000 jury verdict for damages allegedly

caused by defendant's negligent construction of plaintiff's home);

Leverence v. PFS Corp., 532 N.W.2d 735 (Wis. 1995) (considering a

property damages and personal injury case brought by 802 occupants of

homes allegedly subject to mold caused by excessive moisture).

6. See, e.g., Fickett v. Management Corp. No. SC 059598 (Los

Angeles, Cal. County Super. Ct. filed 2000) (claiming medical,

moving, investigation, funeral and burial, and legal expenses because

defendants allegedly allowed mold to grow within apartment units

causing residents to suffer severe personal injury and death); Munoz

v. Henry Phipps Plaza South No. 109895/99 (N.Y. County Supr. Ct.

filed Sept. 1998) (seeking, in conjunction with over 140 families, a

total of $8 billion in personal injury and property damages related

to mold contamination).

7. See, e.g., Arnold Mann, Mold: A Health Alert USA Weekend, Dec. 3-

5,1999; Sorensen, Condo Owners' Deluge of Woe Seattle Times,

Sept. 6, 1998; Newton, Fungi Blamed for Sick Building Syndrome:

Texas Tech Researchers Say Fungus Caused Illnesses in School Children

and Office Workers Corpus Christi Caller Times, Aug. 26, 1998.

8. See 48 Hours: This Mold House (CBS television broadcast, Mar. 2,

2000); 60 Minutes: Sick Building Syndrome (CBS television broadcast,

Feb. 7, 2000); Anne Underwood, Your Home A Hidden Health Hazard:

Sneezing and Sniffling? Maybe the Problem Isn't a Cold But Mold. It's

More Dangerous Than You Think., Newsweek, Dec. 4, 2000, at 74;

Conlin, Is Your Office Killing You? Sick Buildings are

Seething With Molds, Monoxide -and Worse Business Week, June 5, 2000,

at 114.

9. Examples of these websites and bulletin boards include:

messages/iaq;

messages/; http://www.toxlaw.com.

10. See V. McNeel & A. Kreutzer, Fungi & Indoor Air

Quauty,10 Health & Environment Digest 9 (May/June 1996) (available at

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/deodc/ ehib /EHIB2/ topics/ fungi-

indoor.html) (opining that the reason for the increase in the

prevalence of mold problems is that NIOSH is now doing a

multidisciplinary investigation comprised of physical,

microbiological, and chemical investigators rather than merely using

chemical investigators).

11. See Cal. Dept. of Health Services, Indoor Air Quality Info Sheet

- Mold in My Home: What Do I Do? (March 1998).

12. See id.

13. See id.

14. See McNeel & Kreutzer, supra note 10.

15. See Cal. Dept. of Health Services, supra note 11; Environmental

Protection Agency ( " EPA " ), Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building

Owners and Facility Managers, at Appendix C (Feb. 2000).

16. See, e.g., Kolnick v. Fountainview Ass'n,737 So.2d 1192 (Fla. Ct.

App. 1999) (alleging that association's failure to maintain the roof

of the building resulted in water intrusion in plaintiff's apartment

causing mold and mildew growth).

17. See, e.g., Doe Homeowners v. Roe Builder, Confidential Report for

Attorneys No. 10272 (settlement May 1, 1998) (claiming damages for

water leaks in doors and windows).

18. See, e.g., Washington Court Condominium Ass'n-Four v. Washington-

Golf Corp., 501 N.E.2d 1290 (111. App. Ct. 1986) (alleging damages

related to water intrusion from windows and an exterior sliding door).

19. See, e.g., Doe Homeowners v. Roe Seller, Confidential Report for

Attorneys (settlement Feb. 24, 1997) (alleging water intrusion into

plaintiff's home from leaking exterior balconies, the roof, and

windows).

20. See, e.g., Palmer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 969 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.

App. 1998) (alleging that defendant's repairs to plaintiff's air

conditioner caused a leak in the unit where the repairs had been

made).

21. See, e.g., Peach v. town Properties, No. CV93 0130286 S,

1996 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3028 (Nov. 18, 1996) (alleging that a crack

in a pool water supply pipe caused flooding in the crawl space below

the plaintiff's unit).

22. See, e.g., Centex-Rooney Constr. Co. v. County, Florida,

725 So.2d 1255 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999) (alleging damages for the

defective and improper construction of the County courthouse).

23. See, e.g., Gorden v. Preece, No. SC 038 088, Tri-Service

Reference No. 98-34-08 (verdict April 10, 1998) (alleging damages

from extensive leaks and flooding in plaintiff's home).

24. See, e.g., Hickenbottom v. Racquet Club Villa Homeowners Ass'n,

No. SC 020 526 (settle ment May 17, 1999) (alleging water intrusion

into the crawl space beneath plaintiff's townhouse unit).

25. See, e.g., Duggan-Steinberg v. Blue Lagoon Community Ass'n, No.

77 53 18 (verdict June19, 1998) (claiming that defendants were

negligent in permitting plaintiff's neighbor to construct a berm and

sidewalk causing drainage into plaintiff's condominium).

26. See Cal. Dept. of Health Services, supra note 11.

27. See EPA., supra note 15.

28. See, e.g., Copsey v. American Air Co., No. 396615 (verdict

January 29, 1998) (alleging that plaintiff was exposed to mold and

dust that was present in the ducts of defendant's HVAC system).

29. See Cal. Dept. of Health Services, supra note 11.

30. See EPA, supra note 15; Committee on Environmental Health,

American Academy of Pediatrics, Toxic Effects of Indoor Molds 101

Pediatrics 712 (1998).

31. See Cal. Dept. of Health Services, supra note 11.

32. See Dept. of Botany, University of Toronto, Penicillium (visited

6/14/00)

http:www.botany.utoronto.ca/ResearchLabs/MallochLab/Malloch/Moulds/Pen

icillium.html.

33. See id.

34. See Coreen A. Robbins, et al., Health Effects of Mycotoxins in

Indoor Air: A Critical Review, 15 Applied Occup. & Environ. Hygiene

773, 773 (2000); R.K. Bush, Standardization of Fungal Allergens, 5

Clinical Rev. Allergy 3 (1987).

35. See N.Y. City Dept. of Health, Bureau of Environmental &

Occupational Disease Epidemiology, Guidelines on Assessment &

Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments (April 2000) (available

at http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/epi/moldrptl.html); Robbins,

supra note 34, at 773.

36. See N.Y. City Dept. of Health, supra note 35; Cal. Dept. of

Health Services, supra note 11.

37. See N.Y. City Dept. of Health, supra note 35.

38. See McNeel & Kreutzer, supra note 10.

39. See Robbins, supra note 34, at 775-77.

40. See id.

41. See id. at 777-78.

42. See id. at 778-81.

43. See id.

44. See McNeel & Kreutzer, supra note 10.

45. See University of Minnesota, Dept. of Environmental Health &

Safety, Mycological Aspects of Indoor Environmental Quality: Fungal

Glossary, (last visited April 2000) http://

www.dehs.umn.edu/iaq/fungus/glossary.html.

46. See Committee on Environmental Health, supra note 30.

47. See University of Minnesota, supra note 45; Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention ( " CDC " ), Questions and Answers on Stachybotrys

Chartarum and Other Molds (March 9, 2000)

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/asthma/factsheets/molds/default.htm.

48. See University of Minnesota, supra note 45; Chin S. Yang, Toxic

Effects of Some Common Indoor Fungi, 4 Enviros: The Healthy Building

Newsletter (Sept. 1994); CDC, supra note 47; Bruce B. Jarvis,

Mycotoxins in the Air: Keep your Building Dry or the Bogeyman Will

Get You in Fungi and Bacteria In Indoor Air Environments: Health

Effects, Detection and Remediation (Eckardt Johanning and Chin S.

Yang eds., 1995).

49. See Robbins, supra note 34, at 775; Cal. Dept. of Health Services

Environmental Health Investigations Branch, Health Effects of Toxin-

Producing Indoor Molds in California, California Morbidity (April

1998) (available at www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/cm/pdf/cm9804pp.pdf).

50. See Robbins, supra note 34, at 775; Cal. Dept. of Health Servs.,

Stachybotrys Chartarum(atra): A Mold That Mqy be Found in Water-

Damaged Homes (April 1997) http://www.caliaq.org/LAYMEM97.html.

51. See L. Sudakin, Toxigenic Fungi in a Water-Damaged

Building: An Intervention Study, 34 Amer. J. Indus. Med. 183, 183

(1998).

52. See Robbins, supra note 34, at 775, 777. See Sudakin, supra note

34, at 183.

53. See Sudakin, supra note 34, at 183

54. See id.

55. See id.

56. See University of Minnesota, supra note 45.

57. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Update: Pulmonary

Hemorrhage /Hemosiderosis Among Infants-Cleveland, Ohio, 1993-1996,

49 MMWR 180 (2000).

58. See id.

59. See id.

60. See Sudakin, supra note 51, at 183.

61. See id.

62. See, e.g., Salvatore Arena, Mold's Toxic, Tenants Say in $8 B

Suit, Daily News, May 18, 1999; Mold Blamed for Illnesses, Drives

Workers Out of Office, (May 5, 2000) http:// www.cnn.com.

63. See, e.g., Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of

Pediatrics, Toxic Effects of Indoor Molds, 101 Pediatrics 712 (1998);

N.Y. City Dept. of Health, supra note 36.

64. See Robbins, supra note 34, at 782.

65. See Thad Godish, Sick Buildings: Definition, Diagnosis, and

Mitigation 301 (1995) (citing P.R. Morey, Airborne Viable

Microorganisms in Office Environments: Sampling Protocol and

Analytical Procedures, 1 Appl. Ind. Hyg. R19 (1986)).

66. See id.

67. See id. (citing H.A. Burge, et al., Bioaerosols: Guidelines for

Assessment and Sampling of Saprophytic Bioaerosols in the Indoor

Environment, 2 Appl. Ind. Hyg. RIO (1987); American Conference of

American Governmental Industrial Hygienists - Bioaerosols Committee,

Guidelines for the Assessment of Bioaerosols in the Indoor

Environment (1989)).

top

Sweeney is a principal and Sheri A. Mullikin is an

associate in the Baltimore law firm of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. .

Their practice involves complex civil litigation, including toxic

torts, products liability, and class actions. Mr. Sweeney and Ms.

Mullikin counsel and defend building owners, property management

companies, employers, and trade associations in mold contamination

and " sick building " cases. Mr. Sweeney will be presenting " Evaluating

Your Mold Case - A Defense Perspective " at Mealey's Mold Litigation

Conference on February 8, 2001 in Philadelphia. Beginning with the

March edition of Mealey's Litigation Report: Mold, Miles and

Stockbridge will publish a bimonthly commentary series. Copyright

2001 by the authors. Responses to this commentary are welcome.

For more information on these issues, contact Mr. Sweeney (410-385-

3597 or jsweeney@...) or Ms. Mullikin (410-385-3655

or smullikin@...).

© 2001 Miles & Stockbridge

www.milesstockbridge.com