Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Most large insurance companies engage their own speciifed contractors to respond to flood or water damage events.This means that they must take responsibility for their actions. In theUK a government document DEFRA contains the information that in buildings still wet after three days, occupants should wear toxic respirators, and that " those affected by mould should move out " . What makes this document interesteing is that it was supported by the ABI Association of British Insureres. Their members however appear to ignore this information and I can only assume therefore that this is lip service for the legal profession. regards Jeff Charlton in London -----Original Message----- From: winslake [mailto:winslake@...] Sent: 22 November 2004 04:38 Subject: [] Re: Evicted By Mold They might but I bet it's the legal liability and the potential for lawsuits that truly drove them to say that. > > > > Evicted By Mold > > 11/17/2004 > > http://www.wcjb.com/news.asp?id=11076 > > > > By Snyder/WCJB TV 20 News > > > > Residents of an apartment building in Newberry are being evicted > > because their building is filled with mold. > > > > The Schowanda Apartments building was damaged during the storm. Now > > its filled with mold caused by the heavy rains. > > > > The people who live there hoped the landlord would fix the problem. > > But he says the insurance company is telling him to move the > > residents out...right away. > > > > Residents got a letter from the landlord on Tuesday telling them to > > leave. Most haven't left yet. > > > > Lakedra Pitner has five kids to worry about. > > > > " Its like a shocker because you think, okay, I'm homeless. I mean, > > you have a home per se, but you gotta get out so, you have nowhere > > to go, you're homeless. " > > > > The owner of the building, a man from Orlando who goes by the > > name " Bishop , " says he was told by his insurance adjuster > > that its unsafe for residents to stay because of high levels of > > mold. > > > > " We asked them to move for their own safety until we can be sure-- > > because they got kids-until we can be sure of the health of the > > children. " > > > > At last word six of the ten apartments remain occupied. Most people > > aren't sure where they will go next. Although they've applied for > > help from FEMA, it takes 7-10 days to find out if they're eligible. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Most large insurance companies engage their own speciifed contractors to respond to flood or water damage events.This means that they must take responsibility for their actions. In theUK a government document DEFRA contains the information that in buildings still wet after three days, occupants should wear toxic respirators, and that " those affected by mould should move out " . What makes this document interesteing is that it was supported by the ABI Association of British Insureres. Their members however appear to ignore this information and I can only assume therefore that this is lip service for the legal profession. regards Jeff Charlton in London -----Original Message----- From: winslake [mailto:winslake@...] Sent: 22 November 2004 04:38 Subject: [] Re: Evicted By Mold They might but I bet it's the legal liability and the potential for lawsuits that truly drove them to say that. > > > > Evicted By Mold > > 11/17/2004 > > http://www.wcjb.com/news.asp?id=11076 > > > > By Snyder/WCJB TV 20 News > > > > Residents of an apartment building in Newberry are being evicted > > because their building is filled with mold. > > > > The Schowanda Apartments building was damaged during the storm. Now > > its filled with mold caused by the heavy rains. > > > > The people who live there hoped the landlord would fix the problem. > > But he says the insurance company is telling him to move the > > residents out...right away. > > > > Residents got a letter from the landlord on Tuesday telling them to > > leave. Most haven't left yet. > > > > Lakedra Pitner has five kids to worry about. > > > > " Its like a shocker because you think, okay, I'm homeless. I mean, > > you have a home per se, but you gotta get out so, you have nowhere > > to go, you're homeless. " > > > > The owner of the building, a man from Orlando who goes by the > > name " Bishop , " says he was told by his insurance adjuster > > that its unsafe for residents to stay because of high levels of > > mold. > > > > " We asked them to move for their own safety until we can be sure-- > > because they got kids-until we can be sure of the health of the > > children. " > > > > At last word six of the ten apartments remain occupied. Most people > > aren't sure where they will go next. Although they've applied for > > help from FEMA, it takes 7-10 days to find out if they're eligible. FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.