Automotive Insurance Industri

There is no other industry that feels the effects of microbial contamination in buildings like the insurance industry. With litigation over mold into the millions of dollars the insurance industry is scrambling looking for answers. This page is written by Al Tibbs, CIAQM a professional IAQ Consultant and Construction Inspector working in the private sector as a consultant to home and building owners.

From my perspective the first problem that should be addressed is the timeliness in which water damage claims are dealt with. In many cases, I am hired by a home or building owner that is waiting to hear word from their insurance company on a water damage claim. When the adjuster does make it to the site, which, in some cases is days later, the damage may already be done. Adjusters need to be aware of the time factors involved in microbial contamination. Studies have shown that microbial contamination can begin in as little as 24-48 hours after an initial flood, whether from sewer backup, roof leak, pipe break or any other factor. I believe that in the past, adjusters have been concerned with limiting the losses to the insurer only. Today, with toxic mold litigation on the rise, that may not be the best solution. It may be prudent for insurers to deal more openly with microbial contamination after a flood or water damage claim is filed.

In a recent case, I was working for a homeowner that had an unfortunate pipe break at their incoming water service. The ensuing leak caused damage to the walls, carpet, etc. There was plainly visible microbial contamination on the drywall in the area of the leak. In this case, the adjuster told my client not to worry, that the black stains were not mold, but dirt. I was forced to take surface samples of the area (adding another week to the timeline) to prove that plainly visible mold, was indeed, mold. The added time, waiting for sample results only made matters worse. Given the right conditions, that few extra days could increase the cost of the cleanup substantially.

In the case mentioned above, after finally accepting that the visible growth on the walls was indeed fungi, the insurer sent in a cleanup contractor to secure the area and prevent further contamination. The contractor set up an enclosure to contain the area, along with a negative pressure exhaust to the exterior of the building. Unfortunately, the contractor did not take the time to secure the exhaust from the negative pressure equipment and it fell out and into the room, agitating the air and most likely blowing spores throughout the home.

The above scenario shows one thing. Insurers and those working for them need to be more aware of potential longer term costs and not concentrate solely on reducing claim costs. In cases where microbial contamination is suspected, insurers should use companies that are experienced in microbial abatement procedures to secure the area and limit further contamination and to assure that the situation is being handled properly. Not doing so only increases the insurers costs.

The companies contracted to perform the initial containment and remediation should be experienced abatement contractors, not cleaning companies. Some cleanup companies are unaware of microbial contamination and look at it contamination as no big deal. This is proving to be costly for insurers.