Search Site
Menu

Landlords: Insurance companies now are denying many Mold Claims

Landlords and other property owners have so much on their plates. They need to worry about increasing utility costs. Taxes are always rising. So are maintenance and repair costs.

Then there are the flooding concerns. With global warming many properties will be impacted over the next several decades. And commercial property owners have to worry about their continued utility. In the pandemic many businesses learned that they do not need to rent as much space as they once had.

One of the trickiest concerns for landlords concerns insurance. Insurance companies make money by charging premiums and investing what they have. They do not make money by paying claims. In fact, quite the contrary.

Which means that when carriers start to see a lot of the same kind of claim, they simply begin to exclude it from coverage. Case in point: the pollution exclusion clause. When property owners started filing claims to clean their contaminated properties, insurance companies excluded coverage for pollution claims. Which has been a disaster for many property owners.

When they started having too many flooding claims, they stopped covering water damage claims. That’s another disaster. And the problem is that state regulators are all too happy to go along with this. The insurance industry wins this way. Property owners- they often are bankrupted by these events.

And now the newest problem: the microbial exclusion. Landlords have heard about mold related lawsuits for the past 15 years or so and so have insurers. And in the past several years they have started excluding mold claims from insurance policies. Its done kind of quietly. Usually property owners don’t know the coverage has been eliminated until they need the coverage.

So when a landlord is sued for a mold claim by a tenant –the landlord files a claim with his or her insurer. And now often the insurer denies the claim based on this exclusion. Zero coverage, the landlord is on his or her own.

When the claim is for property damage: which can be in the thousands of dollars, the landlord can be on his or her own. All that money now comes out of the landlord’s pocket.

And when the tenant claims he or she has become ill and maybe even that he or she has cancer because of mold, the carrier denies the claim again. The value of that claim can be anywhere from zero to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or more. And landlords can be on their own if an insurance carrier claims there is no coverage. Many landlords feel despair and hopelessness when their insurer does this to them.

At our firm we take parallel approachs when landlords retain us in mold litigation when their carrier has denied the claim. First –we will respond to the claim, or the lawsuit if one has been filed. Our law firm has handled mold claims for decades. We know the score and we will defend you.

Second, if the landlord wants us to do so, we will take another look at that denial from the carrier. Was it fair? Is is a correct application of the microbial exclusion? Was the policy holder given notice of the exclusion? Do the facts support the exclusion?

This can begin with a letter to the carrier asking that the matter be revisited. If need be it can even result in a lawsuit being filed against the carrier for breach of contract and of fiduciary duty.

No one wants a lawsuit. Our landlords don’t want to be sued for mold claims –especially when they have done nothing wrong. And they do not want their insurance carrier to leave them to fend for themselves, after years of paying expensive premiums with the thought that the insurance company would be there when needed.

Landlords have enough to keep them busy. Unfair mold claims, coupled with unfair treatment from their insurer –that’s more than most people can handle.

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • New Jersey sets emergency water standards for new chemicals. https://t.co/trgaaLL1mD
    5 months ago
  • How will New Jersey manage stormwater as the climate changes and flooding increases? https://t.co/dhVLALyzZ2
    5 months ago
  • Unprecedented storms are slamming NJ – learn how to be the best advocate for your clients when the next flood hits.… https://t.co/TicH6iAjP0
    5 months ago
  • Trenton Water Works has removed 25 percent of lead pipes throughout its service area. https://t.co/KUvhMsJlvU
    5 months ago

Recent Blog Posts

Supreme Court concludes that attorney review period is not a requirement of absolute auction contracts

On June 9, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously decided that attorney review period is not a required contractual provision for a residential real estate sale by absolute auction.
Read More
Supreme Court concludes that attorney review period is not a requirement of absolute auction contracts

It Depends on the Language – The Non-Disparagement Clause

How enforceable is a non-disparagement clause in an agreement? As is always the case with any contract or agreement, it depends on the language. On May 31, 2022, the Appellate Division
Read More
It Depends on the Language – The Non-Disparagement Clause

DCA Tries Again to Use RSIS to Limit Municipal Stormwater Controls

By Michele Donato, Esq. and Stuart Lieberman, Esq. In the 1990’s, developers claimed that municipal residential development ordinances lacked uniformity, increased development costs, and caused uncertainty in the development process. In
Read More
DCA Tries Again to Use RSIS to Limit Municipal Stormwater Controls

Previous Property Manager Charged with Embezzling and Laundering Stolen Funds from Hamilton Park CO-OP.

Nicolas DePaola of Ewing New Jersey was indicted on twelve charges for embezzling and laundering stolen money from his prior client, Hamilton Park CO-OP. On April 1, 2022, a Mercer
Read More
Previous Property Manager Charged with Embezzling and Laundering Stolen Funds from Hamilton Park CO-OP.

In The Media

  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules

    NJ.com Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form