Asbestos of the ’00s
by Rick Reiff
ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE THAT ARE plaguing Corporate California is to check out the titles of law firm-sponsored seminars.
Over recent years the dominant themes have included asbestos liability, environmental regulations, workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, strike suits, sexual harassment and construction defects.
Now comes mold.
Latham & Watkins sponsored a seminar on “Indoor Mold ‘Toxic’ Mold ” in Costa Mesa last week. This came on the heels of a letter last month in the OCBJ by Maryann Maloney of the watchdog Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse; she warned that an onslaught of mold litigation has begun, with some California insurers already spooked into raising homeowner rates or halting new policies altogether.
Mold suits, like those involving the other issues mentioned above, have some grounding in reality, of course. There undoubtedly are actual cases of people who have suffered harm from mold that can be blamed on the action or inaction of a builder or manufacturer. And those cases are what the courts are for.
The unreality arises, however, when legitimate claims become part of the trial lawyers’ tort machine, oiled by a complicit (Democrat) legislature/governor, hand-wringing/headline-seeking celebrities and impressionable reporters. Before you can say “killer mold,” California gets the Erin Brockovich-inspired Toxic Mold Protection Act of 2001.
The result is a litigious frenzy that does far more harm than good. Wealth gets redistributed from companies that make things and employ people to a relatively few lawyers, clients and consultants.
As usual in these matters, paranoia outpaces science. Mold is everywhere, and many people are allergic to it.
But there is no evidence that mold toxins produced in a house or office are ever ingested in large enough quantities to be harmful.
But just watch and listen. You never knew what a scourge mold was, until now.
, Rick Reiff
