Iowa Court Decides for Consumers in Moldy Home Case

[Guest guest]

Iowa Court Decides for Consumers in Moldy Home Case

InjuryBoard.com - Tampa,FL*

Posted by Jane Akre

Monday, February 04, 2008

Feed Category: Major Medical, Protecting Your Family

Tags: Toxic Substances, Property Owners Liability, Defective and

Dangerous Products

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/iowa-court-decides-for-

consumers-in-moldy-home-case.aspx?googleid=29414

Beverly and Speight knew they had a problem when they could

puncture the waterlogged siding on their $250,000 Iowa home with a

fingertip.

It is the unspeakable word to builders, insurers and home

inspectors. " M " for mold or mildew—no one wants to cover it or take

responsibility for it.

The owner of a moldy home may discover multiple exclusions in the

contract with a home inspector or that their homeowners insurance

has dropped or capped mold claims. Homeowners often run into a brick

wall they have to remedy with their own bank account.

Just ask Brockovich, of the film by the same name. She had to

move out of her California home after mold, found growing in the

floor and walls, caused her family's health problems.

The CDC says there is no such thing as " toxic mold " but mold impacts

those with asthma or a compromised immune system. The Institute of

Medicine reports allergic and non allergic reactions in humans

exposed to spores. All agree it should be removed.

Now the Iowa Supreme Court has issued a ruling that gives homeowners

living in moldy conditions some hope. Home builders can be held

responsible for poor workmanship that leads to mold and mildew from

water seepage, long after the original buyer has moved out.

The decision comes from a lawsuit filed by the Speights of Clive,

Iowa who filed against Walters Development Company. Ltd. which build

the home in 1995.

The original buyer sold it to someone who later sold it to the

Speights in 2000. Instead of a dream home, the Speights noticed

water damage and mold growing. An inspector found that subpar

materials used for shingles and rain gutters coupled with a design

flaw and shortcuts in construction allowed the severe water seepage

to accumulate on the walls and eventually flood the basement. The

previous owners apparently did not know of the defects.

The Speights filed a lawsuit against Walters in 2003 charging breach

of implied warranty of workmanlike construction which says

a " building be constructed in a reasonably good and workmanlike

manner and …be reasonably fit for the intended purpose, " the court

said.

In other words, Walters was negligent in constructing the home.

The builder challenged the lawsuit suggesting the statute of

limitations had passed and any warrantee only applied to the initial

home buyer. The company refused to do any repairs.

The lawsuit against the builder was dismissed and the Speights

appealed but the state appeals court upheld the lower court decision

dismissing the lawsuit.

Then the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Speights saying the

statute of limitation did not apply because it was based on

discovery of damage and not the sale of goods.

" We conclude ... the plaintiffs could not have gained actual or

imputed knowledge of the defect in their home more than five years

prior to commencing this action, and their suit is therefore not

time barred under Iowa Code, " the court said.

So far the couple has spent $25,000 on home repairs. Now they are on

their way to trial.

The Speights' attorney Harley Erbe tells the Des Moines Register the

decision " is a great victory for consumers, because the fact that

many people nowadays are buying homes that were built for somebody

else, as opposed to having homes that were custom-built. "

The attorney for the contractor says the ruling could " flood the

court with lawsuits " from homeowners and puts a significant burden

on builders who are already hurting from the downturn in the home

sales.

Some states do not allow subsequent buyers to sue the original

contractor. But this case could turn the tide for a growing number

of people expected to move into previously owned homes. #

[Guest guest]

Amen!!!!!!!

tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@...> wrote: Iowa

Court Decides for Consumers in Moldy Home Case

InjuryBoard.com - Tampa,FL*

Posted by Jane Akre

Monday, February 04, 2008

Feed Category: Major Medical, Protecting Your Family

Tags: Toxic Substances, Property Owners Liability, Defective and

Dangerous Products

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/iowa-court-decides-for-

consumers-in-moldy-home-case.aspx?googleid=29414

Beverly and Speight knew they had a problem when they could

puncture the waterlogged siding on their $250,000 Iowa home with a

fingertip.

It is the unspeakable word to builders, insurers and home

inspectors. " M " for mold or mildew—no one wants to cover it or take

responsibility for it.

The owner of a moldy home may discover multiple exclusions in the

contract with a home inspector or that their homeowners insurance

has dropped or capped mold claims. Homeowners often run into a brick

wall they have to remedy with their own bank account.

Just ask Brockovich, of the film by the same name. She had to

move out of her California home after mold, found growing in the

floor and walls, caused her family's health problems.

The CDC says there is no such thing as " toxic mold " but mold impacts

those with asthma or a compromised immune system. The Institute of

Medicine reports allergic and non allergic reactions in humans

exposed to spores. All agree it should be removed.

Now the Iowa Supreme Court has issued a ruling that gives homeowners

living in moldy conditions some hope. Home builders can be held

responsible for poor workmanship that leads to mold and mildew from

water seepage, long after the original buyer has moved out.

The decision comes from a lawsuit filed by the Speights of Clive,

Iowa who filed against Walters Development Company. Ltd. which build

the home in 1995.

The original buyer sold it to someone who later sold it to the

Speights in 2000. Instead of a dream home, the Speights noticed

water damage and mold growing. An inspector found that subpar

materials used for shingles and rain gutters coupled with a design

flaw and shortcuts in construction allowed the severe water seepage

to accumulate on the walls and eventually flood the basement. The

previous owners apparently did not know of the defects.

The Speights filed a lawsuit against Walters in 2003 charging breach

of implied warranty of workmanlike construction which says

a " building be constructed in a reasonably good and workmanlike

manner and …be reasonably fit for the intended purpose, " the court

said.

In other words, Walters was negligent in constructing the home.

The builder challenged the lawsuit suggesting the statute of

limitations had passed and any warrantee only applied to the initial

home buyer. The company refused to do any repairs.

The lawsuit against the builder was dismissed and the Speights

appealed but the state appeals court upheld the lower court decision

dismissing the lawsuit.

Then the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Speights saying the

statute of limitation did not apply because it was based on

discovery of damage and not the sale of goods.

" We conclude ... the plaintiffs could not have gained actual or

imputed knowledge of the defect in their home more than five years

prior to commencing this action, and their suit is therefore not

time barred under Iowa Code, " the court said.

So far the couple has spent $25,000 on home repairs. Now they are on

their way to trial.

The Speights' attorney Harley Erbe tells the Des Moines Register the

decision " is a great victory for consumers, because the fact that

many people nowadays are buying homes that were built for somebody

else, as opposed to having homes that were custom-built. "

The attorney for the contractor says the ruling could " flood the

court with lawsuits " from homeowners and puts a significant burden

on builders who are already hurting from the downturn in the home

sales.

Some states do not allow subsequent buyers to sue the original

contractor. But this case could turn the tide for a growing number

of people expected to move into previously owned homes. #