AAGO LEGAL LEGAL NEWS by KEVIN KNIGHT
A LANDLORD’S LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO REMOVE MOLD Landlords have to keep their properties “ship shape” and in good repair, etc. One of the easiest items on the “to do list” that can be overlooked is mold. Sometimes it’s hard to see on first blush and other times it’s mistaken for wear and tear, discoloration, etc. By: Kevin Knight A recent Florida case emphasizes the importance of ensuring that there is an orderly program for mold detection and extrication. This article will consider the case of Huggins v Siegel (Fla. 1st DCA September 15, 2021). THE HUGGINS FACTS: The Huggins rented a house from Siegel from August 2015 through December 2017. Before they moved in and during the rental period, the Huggins complained about potential water intrusion and mold. Siegel refused to have the house inspected and the Huggins hired their own mold inspection company. The inspection report indicated that multiple mold types, including two toxic molds -- aspergillus and penicillium -were present in the home. After receiving the mold report, Huggins vacated the property. THE LAWSUIT: Huggins sued Siegel and asserted that Siegel’s negligence in failing to inspect and remove the old exposed Mrs. Huggins to dangerous mold. At the time of occupancy, Mrs. Huggins was pregnant with one of Huggins’ children. Throughout Mrs. Huggins’s pregnancy, ultrasounds showed
36
THE KEY www.aago.org
that the child was forming two kidneys, but when the child was born it had only one kidney (i.e., renal agenesis). The child also exhibited indications of brain injury. Mrs. Huggins suffered severe emotional distress as a result of her newborn’s issues. THE EXPERT ISSUE: In order to prove their case, the Huggins retained a medical expert to testify about causation. About a month before pretrial, Siegel filed a motion to strike the expert. Huggins argued that Siegel’s motion was “too late.” The trial court denied Huggins’ lateness argument and also found that the expert was not qualified to testify on causation. Siegel requested summary judgment based on the Huggins’ inability to prove causation and their case without a medical expert. The Huggins conceded this point, Siegel was granted summary judgment and the Huggins appealed. THE APPEAL: The appellate court considered Huggins’ expert’s background. The court noted that he was a board certified, licensed physician in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology and the subspecialties of reproductive
