Building Air Quality

Litigation and Indoor Air Quality

Although the size of settlements awarded to plaintiffs in indoor air quality (IAQ) related cases could serve as an indicator of the costs caused by building related problems, the majority of these types of cases are settled out of court. Thus, there is not way of totaling the cost of litigation from IAQ cases. A few individual cases do provide useful information on the dollar range and settlement costs, however. Four benchmark cases of indoor air quality litigation include:

1) Call vs. Prudential
This was the first major IAQ-related case argued before a jury. Although the case was settled (for a sum rumored to be in the multimillion dollar range) before a verdict was reached, Call generated important IAQ related law. Claims by the plaintiffs charged acts of negligence, including:
1) using building materials that emitted formaldehyde or other noxious substances
2) failure to warn them that the building was unsuitable for occupancy due to the noxious fumes and chemicals invading the premises
3) failure to supply sufficient fresh (outside) air to the building
4) failure to heed reports of tight building syndrome (TBS) and sick building syndrome (SBS)
5) failure to convey information about the health effects of tight building syndrome and sick building syndrome.

The owner of the building with the alleged IAQ problems was Prudential Insurance Company. It was named in the suit together with the management company, architect, engineer, general contractor, the companies that installed the HVAC components, and the company that built the floor where the problems originally occurred.

The Call case extended the chain of liability for problems with the HVAC system not only to the manufacturers and sellers of the system, but to everyone involved in the design and construction of the system, architects, engineers, installers, and anyone else who might have been involved.

2) DuPage County Courthouse
A courthouse located in DuPage County, Illinois, was the cause of a number of suits involving hundreds of litigants. In 1991, shortly after law enforcement and judicial staff began to occupy the building, occupants began to suffer from symptoms characteristic of sick building syndrome (SBS). Headaches, nausea, dizziness, respiratory irritation, and other symptoms were all reported. In March of 1992 several building occupants were removed by ambulance, and the building was temporarily evacuated.

In late 1992 a number of the building's occupants filed a personal injury lawsuit against the architect, contractors, and HVAC contractors, alleging that their illnesses were caused by the design of the ventilation system and the presence of volatile organic compounds.

The county then sued the architect and contractors, seeking $3 million for fixing the building's ventilation system.

Because the county workers' compensation program was self-funded, private insurers were not directly affected, but the publicity generated by the problems in this building and others provided incentive to insurers and others to take sick building complaints more seriously.

3) Polk County Courthouse
A new Polk County, Florida, courthouse was found to cause a number of cases of sick building syndrome, allegedly because of fungi or other microbiological agents breeding in its HVAC system.

The county sued several parties including the building's general contractor, and in June of 1995 a jury ordered Reliance Insurance Company to pay $25.8 million in damages. The final settlement was for $35 million due to accrued interest over a long appeals process.

4) Martin County Courthouse
A courthouse in Martin County, Florida, which was constructed in 1989 experienced IAQ problems resulting in rehabilitation of the facility which exceeded $24 million. This was in large part because the south Florida humidity supported the growth of molds and fungi in building materials including vinyl wallpaper.

The cost of rehabilitation exceeded the cost of construction,which was $11 million, and the country had to relocate its employees for two years while the work was being done.

It is unclear whether the frequency of these kinds of cases in increasing, but lawyers familiar with the field believe so: "More and more IAQ legal claims, especially ones against property owners are being filed," according to Brett W. Reich, a senior environmental attorney with Aon Environmental Risk Services in Houston.