It is important to recognize that the flow of revenue, scope of work, additional expense and potential liability can strain a working relationship between the restorer and his client.

Historically, the primary source of business for restorers is generated through relationships with the insurance community - with the sources of revenue, to perform services, flowing from the insurance company, to the insured, to the restorer.

In some cases, the client does not have insurance coverage for the remediation and is left to fund the restoration personally, or forgo the service. For those without insurance coverage, the escalating costs make a remediation project almost unaffordable.

Insurance companies faced with higher labor rates, an expanded scope of work, additional living expense for homeowners, further business interruption costs and the issue of environmental sampling. To complicate matters more, restorers must deal with the covered water loss that may result in discovering pre-existing water damage that is not covered - but has resulted in a severe mold problem. The restorer, obligated to protect his workers as required by OSHA, must also be concerned about the potential exposure to the occupants of the building, and adverse health effects from the exposure to a moldy environment. This results in higher costs for the acquisition and utilization of specialized equipment, personal protective equipment, and additional training. In addition, the work product includes necessary services not previously performed, including: erecting containment, more detailed cleaning and sampling. These increased costs are passed on to the restorer's clients.

Insurance adjusters face the same learning curve experienced by restoration firms. From the adjuster's perspective, these kinds of problems have existed and been successfully handled without any of the newly acquired technology.

The matter becomes more confusing when it is learned that at least one government agency states in a printed document that they, "do not recommend testing as the first step to determine if there is a mold problem." While that statement may be true with respect to making a determination of whether or not visible mold exists in the building, it has been misinterpreted to mean that initial sampling is not necessary.

Controlling Costs

Some insurance companies extend coverage to include mold remediation, where the original cause of the water intrusion is covered; other insurance companies take a more restrictive stand about allowing coverage. Regardless of their position, there is constant pressure to find a way to keep costs under control. There in lies the dilemma - how to provide an adequate level of service that protects workers and occupants and at the same time allows for it to be affordable?

Restorers face questions about whether or not to have jobsites sampled, what to do about pre-existing conditions that may not be covered by insurance, and how to deal with clients that are unwilling or reluctant to pay the price. Some may suggest that there is a simple answer - walk away from any job where you are not allowed to perform the services required to insure a safe environment. That solution, however, may not work for everyone.

For some restoration companies, the scope of services required to insure a safe environment is not always clear and their livelihood may depend upon these relationships.

Now, it becomes a risk management issue. In the absence of any legislation or standard requiring a specified level of response to a mold problem, there will always be competitors less concerned about what is best, and who look for the expedient and least expensive. The results appear to be just as good - but may put workers and occupants at risk.
To turn down such a job, may open the door to a misinformed and less concerned remediation firm. On the other hand, to accept the job and perform a level of service that may not be adequate puts your firm at risk. It's only a matter of time before someone files a lawsuit.

Here's a good example. A restoration company, trained to perform mold remediation services, found themselves on a water damage job that resulted in a severe mold problem. The insurance company agreed to pay for the remediation services including the clearance sampling; however, they did not agree to pay for the additional cost of sampling at the beginning of the job. Perhaps because they couldn't see the mold, they thought that there was no need.

The firm performed the specified remediation services. Clearance sampling performed in the immediate area of the remediation proved unacceptable. Sampling performed outside the contained work area, and the remainder of the home, was found to be unacceptable.

Question

Was the spread of the mold spores a result of the remediation firm's failing to adequately contain the remediation work area, or were the elevated mold spore levels there prior to the work being performed?

If samples had been taken at the beginning of the job, it would have helped establish a more accurate scope of work. Had mold spores been found throughout the home as a result of an initial sampling, it would have indicated the need to perform additional cleaning of settled spores as part of the original scope of work or that there was a need for further investigation of the home to determine if other areas of water intrusion might have resulted in mold growth.

If sampling at the beginning of the project did not show an elevated level of molds outside of the original work area, then the clearance sampling might indicate that the responsibility for the spread was the restorer's.

For the restorer, the situation was complicated by the fact that if he submitted the cleanup costs to his liability insurance company, they may not have extended coverage under the pollution exclusion. In this case, the restorer recognized the dilemma and decided to bear the cost of cleaning up.

The subsequent cleanup effort was unsuccessful. The follow-up sampling indicated that the mold spore levels continued to be unacceptable. Later, hidden pockets of mold were discovered in various locations in the home. This would explain the failure of an otherwise successful remediation process and would have absolved the restorer of responsibility for the spread of spores.

Two years later, the house remains unoccupied and the case is in the hands of attorneys. We cannot be sure that the proposed initial sampling would have changed the ultimate outcome, but it would have reduced the delay and the potential liability exposure to the restoration firm.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It's a process of allowing time for the learning curve to take place. Environmental consultants and restorers can educate their clients about the need to establish an accurate scope of work by the utilization of appropriate sampling techniques to determine the spread of mold spores.

Various agencies should be careful, even guarded, about their verbal or written instructions to interested parties about the appropriateness of initial sampling.

There are more qualified restorers today than ever before. The Water Loss Institute (WLI), a division of the Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration (ASCR) has been at the forefront of educating the restoration industry in the necessary skills of performing mold and sewage damage remediation. Additionally, there is an emerging concern about worker safety as required by OSHA and regulatory agencies in other geographic areas. For information on Water Loss Institute members in your area contact ASCR headquarters at (800) 272-7012, or visit their web site at www.ascr.org. The Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration (IICRC) has recently published the second edition of the S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration, which is available through IICRC at (360) 693-5675.

Since the learning curve is different for each industry, the issues will continue to exist. The meeting of minds requires a united effort by all of the parties involved and the sooner we begin to address these and similar issues…the better.

James Holland, CR, currently manages Restoration Consultants, an indoor environmental consulting firm. He has been actively affiliated with the restoration industry for more than 25 years and is an ASCR Certified Restorer. Currently Jim is a member of the Water Loss Institute Advisory Committee, the IICRC S500-99 Water Damage Standard Edit Committee, the Chairman of the IICRC Health and Safety Committee and a founding Board Member of the Indoor Environmental Remediation Board (IERB). He can be reached at (916) 736-1100 or at www.restcon.com