Human Rights Advocate Joins Push for Mold Bill

Limits for Mold Unavailable, New Guideline States

New Advice: Let the Sellers of Air Cleaners Beware

Word on the Street

• NADCA CELEBRATES NEW YEAR EARLY
  The National Air Duct Cleaners Association’s revised standard “Assessment, Cleaning and Restoration of HVAC Systems” was published in September. The new edition, ACR 2005, immediately replaces the 2002 edition, and certification testing on ACR 2005 will begin in March. The update gives guidance and defines conditions under which mold remediation must be performed, in accordance with IICRC S520. NADCA has also added better definitions and procedures for dealing with water damage. Orders for ACR 2005 received by Nov. 30 will earn a 50 percent discount for members and 20 percent for non-members. Visit www.nadca.com to order.
     
• SHORT PEOPLE, BIG PROBLEM
  The debate on mold and health effects heated up last month as a study was published showing a possible link between certain mold mycotoxins and child development. High levels of aflatoxins, which are specific mycotoxins produced only by some strains of Aspergillus sp., could stunt the growth of children in their first three years, according to researchers from the United Kingdom and the West African country of Benin. Their study appears in the September issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
    
• SCHOOLS REMINDED ABOUT ASBESTOS
  The newsletter of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Regulatory Enforcement last month contained a reminder that schools should be inspected for asbestos-containing building materials. The September edition of Enforcement Alert also urged schools to prepare management plans for the reduction of asbestos hazards. “A popular misconception is that asbestos-containing materials were banned and removed from school buildings years ago,” the Enforcement Office stated in a release. “Although some schools have been able to remove asbestos altogether, many have opted to manage asbestos-containing material in place.” Enforcement Alert can be read online free of charge at the www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/newsletters/civil/enfalert/.
   
• GREEN HOMES TO BE AWARDED
  Submissions for the 2005 National Green Building Awards are currently being accepted by the National Association of Home Builders. Winners of the awards, which recognize individuals, companies and organizations demonstrating a commitment to the ideals of green home building, will be announced at the 2005 National Green Building Conference, to be held March 13–15 in Atlanta. Entrants are eligible to compete in seven “green” categories, including Advocate of the Year, Program of the Year, and the Outstanding Green Marketing Award. Visit www.nahb.org/greenbuildingawards for more information on the awards. Entries must be received by Dec. 15.
   
• DARK SIDE OF THE MOLD
  The local media in Denver covered the story of three police detectives who were treated for their exposure to vapors from a batch of moldy marijuana. NBC affiliate 9News reported the cops were “attempting to destroy evidence” and quoted a spokesperson for the police saying that a “hazardous” fungus had developed on the drug. ABC 7 and the Rocky Mountain News also picked up on the story, adding that because a criminal case had just ended, the police opened up the bag and were overcome by the bad smell, making them sick. “The Old Hippy,” an online connoisseur of all things groovy, says that while “burning [moldy marijuana] will destroy the spores,” it is advised to “minimize the risk and only smoke the unmoldy pot.”  
    
• SCHOOLS DIP INTO WELL OF HONEY
  Honeywell International Inc. has settled a lawsuit with a school district in southern Texas over HVAC systems the district says failed, allowing mold to thrive in two campuses. As part of the settlement reached Aug. 31, Honeywell is dishing out $15 million to reimburse the San Benito Independent School District for the cost of a 2001 mold remediation. The payoff also factors in interest on a loan and attorneys’ costs. The school district told the Texas-based Valley Morning Star newspaper that it would “break even.” A report on the settlement also matriculated in the Pioneer Press, which operates out of St. Paul, Minn., where some Honeywell corporate offices are located. An attorney for the school district told the Pioneer Press that the school board found the amount in the settlement satisfactory, although the lawsuit had originally sought as much as $180 million. A statement from Honeywell proclaims: “There is no basis for the allegations of fraud and other claims made by the district, and we believe that we would have prevailed at trial. … No mold related to any Honeywell work has been found in any of these schools.”
   
• THE RIGHT EFFECT
  Delaware’s statewide ban on smoking in workplaces seems to have worked, according to a study of eight formerly smoky hospitality establishments in Wilmington. The study compared indoor air pollution levels in six bars, a casino and a pool hall taken before and after state law prohibited smoking in those places beginning Nov. 27, 2002. “This research clearly shows that it is far worse for your health to be a bartender or casino dealer in a smoking-permitted establishment than it is to be a turnpike toll collector,” says study author James L. Repace. “These workers breathe an average of 90 percent cleaner air after a smoke-free workplace law.” While January 2003 test results showed indoor levels were indistinguishable from those outdoors, indoor levels less than four weeks before the ban went into effect were much higher. Respirable particulate air pollution levels indoors in November 2002 averaged 20 times those in the outdoors and were 4.6 times higher than the level permissible under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Workers there were exposed to RSP levels 2.6 times higher than those Repace measured on diesel-exhaust polluted streets in Boston and on Interstate-95 in Delaware. Carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels pre-ban were five times higher than outdoor levels in Wilmington, and exceeded those measured at an I-95 tollbooth at the heavily trafficked Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. The study is published in the September edition of the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

Human Rights Advocate Joins Push for Mold Bill
By Steve Sauer

A few months ago, celebrity and human rights advocate Bianca Jagger told the press she was “homeless.” The former wife of the Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger had moved from her apartment on Manhattan’s Park Avenue saying that while her landlord would not agree to clean up the mold in her residence, her health was worsening. After a series of phone calls to various New York City agencies for help, she says she learned that government really has no answer.

And with that, the human rights advocate landed a new cause: insisting on a legislative solution to mold, which at some estimates affects thousands of people living in the United States alone.

“She called up every member of Congress, and almost every one of them returned her call, some even calling her back while they were away in Europe. She just has that much pull,” said Joel Segal, legislative assistant to Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.

Conyers held a press conference Sept. 22 in the Rayburn House Office Building, followed by a congressional briefing to rouse support for his bill, the Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act, which is currently the only pending legislation in Washington, D.C., dealing with mold.

“With Bianca Jagger’s involvement, we’re going to get this bill passed this year,” said Segal.

Staffers of several members of Congress on either side of the aisle attended the Sept. 22 congressional briefing on mold. Medical professionals, indoor air quality executives and mold survivors articulated their needs. Among them are medical research that would determine governmental mold guidance, a national system developing qualifications for mold remediators, and, for some whose mold situations led to homelessness and bankruptcy, just knowing that they are more significant in the government’s eyes than a statistic.

“When people are less important than a policy or the dollar bill, then humanity is lost, and when there is neither hope nor compassion, both people and government perish,” said Rev. Dr. George-Lucas González. Throughout his 15-minute discourse, he grew visibly emotional as he begged Congress for “mercy and human compassion.”

Segal explained during the briefing how Conyers’ proposed mold legislation would rectify some of the problems others were expressing. He presented the provisions of the bill, which include setting up a program for the federal licensing of mold remediators and establishing a national insurance program specifically for it.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said that while he hopes Capitol Hill will back the mold bill, he realizes that funding for it could be hard to come by. The national budget, he said, is “out of whack” due to a history of “fiscal irresponsibility.” He blamed the government for financing “tax breaks and wars” when so many humanitarian issues like mold are never accounted for in budgeting talks.

If passed, Conyers’ bill would also fund medical research into the health effects of mold and requiring the government to establish mold guidelines based on that research. Jagger repeatedly stressed to reporters that the report issued in May by the Institute of Medicine did not say mold is definitely not responsible for health effects but that it stresses more research is needed. She said Conyers’ bill provides a possible solution to that quagmire.

“We really need to get this issue out of the courtroom and into the public health arena,” said Dr. Simone Sommer, a formerly aspiring student of occupational medicine whose own personal experience with mold forced her on disability.

A few members of the medical community say they have already been able to provide some of the precise research science frequently declares it is lacking. Sommer plugged a new book by Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D., titled “Molds and Mycotoxins.” According to Heldref Publications, its D.C.-based publisher, “This book is a compilation of 18 current, scientific, peer reviewed papers presented in 2003 – a veritable mountain of evidence that many mold-exposed people are indeed sick, with significant brain function impairment.”

Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, a former practitioner in Maryland, took to the podium to explain two of his most recent studies. One identifies biochemical markers in patients who responded to treatment twice when away from an affected building, with a relapse upon re-exposure. His other recent study concludes, “Specific genetic, physiologic and neurotoxicologic factors can be identified in pediatric patients that identify cases of chronic illness due to exposure to [water-damaged buildings].” Shoemaker is currently involved in further research to follow up on these studies.

As part of the event, attendees received a 60-page packet titled “Mycotic Disease & Indoor Molds – A Growing Epidemic.” “You’ll need a big box of tissues when you read this,” said Sommer, referring to heart-wrenching first-hand testimonials from constituents all over the country whose accounts were collected online earlier this year.

Some prime examples of sufferer sob stories were presented at the congressional briefing, including that of 9-year-old Andrew Gannon. With his mother in the second row, the boy recounted that he and his family abandoned more than just their home and all their possessions. The family’s search for mold-free living had taken them to a different city, causing Andrew to lose touch with his old friends.

David Fetveit, president of the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization, spoke about the existing standards for mold inspection and the need for assessment experts to work by a common set of industry practices based on good science.

Ever since the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification’s December 2003 release of “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation,” sizeable attention has been paid to its “philosophical shift away from setting numerical mold contamination action levels.” From that point forward, all eyes would be on any new mold documents to see how their authors would strike a balance between IICRC S520 and previously time-honored sets of guidelines from governmental sources whose recommendations were focused on the size of the remediation job.

AIHA Guideline 3–2004, developed in recent months by three technical committees of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and published in September, is like the IICRC S520 in several aspects. In what is one of the most prominent similarities, both profess that levels for mold cannot be determined under present circumstances. This belief is a flagship of AIHA’s new 18-page paperback, titled “Assessment, Remediation and Post-Remediation Verification of Mold in Buildings.”

“AIHA doesn’t believe it is currently possible to define, or set, a single occupational exposure level for mold, due largely to the current state of scientific study in this area,” states the association’s new guidance document. “AIHA also does not believe it’s possible for any single study to accurately delineate levels of exposure to mold or mold by-products that may be harmful to human health.” Generally speaking, it says, indoor mold levels should be less than those outdoors.

Throughout the document, the term “competent professional” refers to “specifically qualified persons [who] should be utilized for the design and management of mold assessments, directing others performing initial mold assessments, writing protocols for mold remediation, and conducting post-remediation inspections.”

The definition of “competent professional” is similar to that of “indoor environmental professional” or “IEP,” the preferred term preferred of the IICRC S520. Like the IICRC’s “IEP,” a “competent professional” as defined by the AIHA is not limited to the Certified Industrial Hygienist, a designation conferred by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.

Such determinations within the AIHA guidance allow qualified professionals other than certified industrial hygienists to perform mold assessments, an admission some trade organizations offering specific mold certifications said they welcomed.

“The AIHA committee seems to share the same opinions and beliefs as those AmIAQ Council individuals certified in mold,” said Charlie Wiles, executive director of the American Indoor Air Quality Council. “The major difference between those individuals who hold only the CIH designation and those who hold the AmIAQ Council Certified Microbial Investigator, Consultant and Remediation Supervisor designations is the CMIs, CMCs and CMRSs have tested specifically for microbial knowledge and field experience.”
“This would have been a perfect opportunity for AIHA to make a power grab on behalf of industrial hygiene and specify that everyone working in mold assessment has to be a CIH,” said Glenn Fellman, executive director of IAQA. “I was relieved to see that the guideline did not do that.”

AIHA’s guidance does, however, state that “attendance at a training course held over a period of a few days” is not sufficient to qualify an individual to “conduct proficient mold assessments.”
Fellman said IAQA certifications are not based solely on attending a course but also passing written exams and meeting stringent prerequisites they say are not unlike the competencies specifically listed by AIHA.
The AmIAQ Council, in the meantime, had already adopted a new measure regarding training courses, “to distance ourselves from the mold certifications offered by the neighborhood entrepreneur around the corner,” said Wiles. “The AmIAQ Council no longer mandates study/review courses – just the ability to pass the stringent examination and provide verifiable evidence of microbial field experience.”

A list AIHA issued in May outlining eight competencies people involved in mold assessment and post-remediation verification should possess now appears as an appendix in Guideline 3–2004. According to the appendix, labeled “Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies,” these individuals should have “a relevant bachelor’s degree in a relevant science” and two years of full-time employment in the professional practice.

The document also specifies three things that, together, are “essential to developing the judgment necessary to recognize, evaluate, develop, and implement measures controlling mold exposures in a competent and responsible manner.” These are education, experience and “demonstrating competency in specific areas of knowledge.”

However, despite one’s ability to perform both assessment and remediation, AIHA warns against the practice of performing both, which some people in the industry call “double dipping” and attorney Michael Bowdoin dismissed in the July issue of IE Connections as being a “hog.”

Meanwhile, one of AIHA’s own accreditation programs for labs is name-checked in the guidance. Labs passing the Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program, the document says, meet the requirements of the National Cooperation on Laboratory Accreditation and are therefore fit to analyze mold samples.

Professional judgment is frequently praised in the AIHA guidance, particularly with regard to assessment and post-remediation verification. AIHA’s stance on professional judgment seems to concur with the S520, which likewise relies on best practices and professional judgment.

However, AIHA is co-sponsoring a symposium taking place next month that seems to have a different affectation on professional judgment. An excerpt of the text promoting the Nov. 7–9 mold symposium in Las Vegas asserts that “professional judgment is a lot like common sense, which may be the least common of the tools that we utilize these days. All too often neither [consensus nor numerical levels] incorporates the qualities of ‘professional’ or ‘common.’”

Mary Ann Latko, AIHA director of scientific and technical initiatives, said that while AIHA is co-sponsoring “Advanced Perspectives in Mold Prevention and Control,” the association is not “directly involved with crafting the agenda of this symposium” and that the symposium does not necessarily reflect AIHA’s position.

The AIHA guidance contains an admission “that mold assessment of buildings in an emerging field, and there are professional disagreements on several issues.”

Team assessment efforts enlisting the expertise of those in building science and the medical profession are encouraged in the document, specifically “where the issues involved are beyond the expertise of a CIH.” It stipulates that “the potential level of exposure may help link the roles of the building scientist, who is focused on causation of water intrusion, and the physician, who is focused on potential health effects.”

The document presents basic principles and objectives for each of the stages of assessment, remediation and post-remediation verification. Its version of assessment relies heavily on visual inspections. The document discourages the use of biocides “as a substitute for mold growth removal.” Noting that the limitations of sampling for airborne mold include misleading results, it discourages sampling “as a primary or sole method of evaluation.” This kind of sampling can, however, be “a valid tool,” it says.

The section on assessment weighs the pros and cons of a few types of assessment tools: wall cavity sampling devices, borescopes, and detection equipment such as moisture meters. It also includes five paragraphs under the heading “Air Sample Collection and Analysis.” One reads: “Currently, a wide range of sampling methodologies are being employed for mold assessment.” It endorses methods recommended by the American conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and elsewhere by the AIHA.

The guidance states that in mold remediation, “Field experience has shown that alternative approaches [to past government guidelines] may be considered,” providing examples of when porous contents should not necessarily be disposed of due to mold growth.

Paperback copies of AIHA Guideline 3–2004, “Assessment, Remediation and Post-Remediation Verification of Mold in Buildings,” are available for purchase at the association’s Web site, www.aiha.org. Orders are also being taken by phone at (703) 846-0794.

Everyone knows the saying “buyer beware,” but these days, sellers may want to exercise that same caution. This is especially true when promoting the health benefits of air filters because a mistake could cost a company millions of dollars. This year, Alpine Industries was ordered to pay $1.49 million in damages after a court found that the company did not have “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to support health claims it made about its air filters.

Even if a company has scientific evidence, it still might not be protected from either federal sanctions or a civil lawsuit (or both) if the results were not precise enough or if a reasonable customer might misunderstand the meaning. The Federal Trade Commission has looked very closely at the health claims companies make about their air filters. A misinterpreted claim regarding an air filter could cost a company a great deal of money.

The first step in protecting yourself against such claims is to learn from the FTC’s past actions.

The Federal Trade Commission
Almost any complaint can trigger an FTC investigation. News articles, Congressional inquiries, or even letters from consumers or businesses can set the process in motion. If the Commission believes that a violation has taken place, it may do one of three things: enter into a voluntary consent agreement with the company, issue an administrative complaint, or go directly to court for injunctive relief.

If the FTC and the company can agree on a course of action, the misrepresentation claim can be settled with a consent agreement, as long as the company abides by the agreement. If no settlement can be reached, the FTC can issue an administrative complaint and try the case before an administrative judge. This administrative proceeding is much like a civil or court trial in which witnesses testify and evidence is submitted. If the company is found guilty, the judge can issue a “cease and desist” order which may be appealed to the full Commission. The third option, in which the Commission seeks an injunction in federal court, is rare and usually only occurs when the FTC wants to stop cases of ongoing fraud before too many consumers get injured.

The type of scientific evidence the FTC looks for was described in a 1997 Commission decision: “Competent and reliable scientific evidence shall mean tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.”

Statement of Deception
In 1983, FTC Chairman James C. Miller wrote a letter to Congress regarding the Commission’s enforcement policy against deceptive acts or practices. The letter states that the Commission would find deception if there is a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.” During an investigation, the FTC looks at the advertisement from the perspective of the “reasonable consumer – the typical person looking at the ad.” Miller also contends that the Commission is not looking to nitpick. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the advertisement “in context – words, phrases, and pictures – to determine what it conveys to consumers.” Of course, something could be singled out if the Commission believes that an individual word or phrase changed the meaning of the advertisement or how it could be interpreted.

The FTC looks at two types of claims that advertising is deceptive: express and implied. Express claims are direct, yet unsubstantiated, statements made in the advertisement. Implied claims are suggestions or hints that subtly convey unsubstantiated benefits. It is in the context of implied claims that a single word or phrase is more likely to come into play.

The following four cases, in which the FTC found fault for a variety of reasons, provide examples of what the Commission looks for when it starts to investigate.

Alpine Industries: In the mid 1990s, the FTC launched an investigation into Alpine Industries and the company’s advertising campaign for the Living Air Model XL15, an ozone-producing “air purification system.” According to the FTC, Alpine Industries “represented, directly or by implication, that when used as directed, the Living Air Model XL15 eliminates, removes, clears, or cleans formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, ammonia (and several other toxins) from (the) user’s environment.” Alpine’s advertisements never directly said that the product cleans the air of all of these pollutants. What it did was list all of the above as indoor air pollutants and then describe how the purifier breaks down the “impurities in the air.” The FTC believed that most “reasonable consumers” would make a connection between the list and what the device does.

Also according to the complaint, Alpine, stated that the XL15 model does not leave behind harmful byproducts in the air. The trial featured an expert who testified that while ozone did break down some pollutants, the product could produce other, simpler, but “even more noxious,” pollutants. The decision led to a $1.49 million penalty derived from a statute which contains a $10,000 penalty for each violation of a Commission order. A district court judge “noted that if each of the exhibits shown to the jury were to be parsed for individual misrepresentations, there would be thousand upon thousands of violations,” equaling millions upon millions of dollars.

AAF-McQuay: In 1997, the FTC approved a settlement with AAF-McQuay in which the company agreed to stop making certain claims about the effectiveness of the ElectroKlean and Dirt Demon air-filtration systems. The commercials claimed the two air-filtration systems remove 95 percent of household dust, pollen and lint from household air and help relieve allergy symptoms. For certain commercials, AAF-McQuay had tests that backed up their claims, but the Commission determined that the tests were “not designed to measure real-life performance as a basis for performance claims, [which] violates basic advertising law principles.”

According to the FTC, the company put the two air-filtration systems though two tests. The first was an “arrestance” test in which a “relatively coarse synthetic dust” was fed through the filter and the second was a “dust spot test,” in which the machines just filtered air. The second test is a better measuring stick to determine how the air-filtration systems would perform in a household environment, but, according to the FTC, the company used the results of the first test as the basis for its advertising claims.

Filtration Manufacturing Inc.: The FTC’s claims against Filtration Manufacturing, Inc. were similar to the claims made against AAF-McQuay with one major exception. Filtration Manufacturing, Inc. had explicitly advertised that its Allergy 2000 electric air filter removed many allergy-causing pollutants from the air. According to the FTC, Filtration Manufacturing, Inc. did not base its claims on tests that simulated a “real-life” situation. In 1996, Filtration Manufacturing, Inc. settled with the FTC and agreed not to make these claims.

The FTC also claimed Filtration Manufacturing, Inc.’s use of the word “allergy” in the name of its product was deceptive. The FTC determined that the name “Allergy 2000” implied that the product would relieve allergy symptoms. Part of the consent agreement required that Filtration Manufacturing, Inc. change the name of the product.

Ford Motor Company/Young & Rubican Inc.: Fines and other legal costs are not the only way the FTC can financially penalize a business. For example, Ford Motor Company allegedly spent $100 million advertising the 1995 model cars with the MicronAir Filtration System through a campaign devised by Young & Rubican, Inc. The filtration system was included in cars such as the Mercury Mystique and the Lincoln Continental.

The advertisements in question stated the “MicronAir Filtration System screens out virtually all pollen, road dust and potentially harmful air pollutants before they enter the car.” In reality, however, the MicronAir Filtration System was not able to screen gases or microscopic particles. None of the advertisements ever said the MicronAir Filtration System could screen carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides or other gases, but, according to the FTC, the advertisement’s statement that the filtration system will remove “virtually all … potentially harmful air pollutants before they enter the car” implied such a result. The two companies and the FTC settled in 1996 with a consent agreement.

Private Action
Even if a company signs a consent agreement, this does not ensure that its legal troubles are over. As long as the company no longer uses the improper language, it is safe from the government, but not protected from a civil suit.

The federal government and each of the 50 states have unfair trade practice statutes, which could result in criminal or civil penalties. The wording of the statutes varies but the basic idea is to prevent “deceptive and unfair trade practices.” These statutes provide the government and private citizens with a relatively easy way to recover damages, by reducing the amount of evidence needed to prove a case. In some states, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to deceive or even that the consumer relied on the disputed claim. Some of these statutes can result in an award of double or triple damages, plus attorney’s fees, for successful lawsuits. A company’s deceptive statements, which initially led to the FTC investigation, could also make the company liable for misrepresentation, negligence or product liability claims in the future.

Protect Yourself at All Times
As is usually the case, the best way to handle legal problems is to avoid them all together. In this case, the use of precise language in advertising, and the preparation and retention of “scientific evidence” to back up your claims, are the best methods to protect yourself against legal actions.

When devising an advertising campaign, carefully look at the language that is being used. Is it overstating your claims? Is there anything that could be read into the advertisement that you do not want to claim? Remember, the FTC is looking at the advertisement as a “regular customer.” Look at your advertising the same way. Before anyone complains, make sure you develop legally supportable data to back up the health claims you make about your products.

Advertising is not the only way to communicate with customers. Anticipate the health-related questions your customers might ask and train your personnel on procedures for answering these questions.

Formulate routine pre-determined responses that clearly communicate and permanently document your communication. The first thing to do when answering a health-related question is to make sure you are within your area of competence. If you do not have an answer, avoid suggesting one that may not work. Use this process of formulating responses as an opportunity to develop a better marketing approach. Help your potential customer to find an answer.

We recommend that our clients analyze their legal vulnerabilities by conducting a “liability audit.” A liability audit evaluates four basic areas: the company’s corporate structure, the company’s policies, the staff’s actual business practices, and the company’s insurance program. As a result of this process, a business owner appreciates the company’s legal risks and can determine the costs and benefits of taking protective steps. These protective steps not only reduce the risk of financial harm, but typically also result in the business running more efficiently and more profitably. Use care, however, in documenting potential liability that you do not intend to address, as this may become evidence against you. Utilizing the expertise of any attorney in the liability audit process will provide the benefits of both a better result and confidentiality.

As the referee instructs boxers before each match: “Protect yourself at all times.” This admonition is crucial for the legal well being of any company and is certainly good advice for those who earn their living making and selling air cleaners.

David M. Governo has over 20 years of experience in helping clients prevent and resolve indoor air quality problems. His firm advocates for individuals and companies in local and national litigation and counsels them in business planning, such as risk management and regulatory compliance. Governo can be reached by e-mail at dgoverno@governo.com or by phone at (617) 737-9047.