Masonry Magazine August 1992 Page. 19
Tight Building Syndrome
Lawsuits to Increase
Mason contractors are among those who are becoming increasingly vulnerable to lawsuits alleging illness and other problems stemming from tight building syndrome.
ROWING PUBLIC concern over indoor air pollution will trigger an increasing number of lawsuits alleging "Tight Building Syndrome" (TBS) or "Sick Building Syndrome." So concludes attorney Randall J. Dean in a recent article in For the Defense, the monthly journal of the Chicago based Defense Research Institute, the nation's largest association of defense lawyers.
According to Dean, partner in the Santa Monica and Newport Beach, California law firm of Chapman and Glucksman, TBS is a complex issue of uncertain origins. So suits are often filed against a wide range of parties associated with the sick building in question.
Parties vulnerable to TBS related lawsuits, says Dean, include building developers and owners, real estate agents and brokers, architects, engineers, general contractors, subcontractors, building managers as well as manufacturers and distributors of products used in construction of the shell and the interior of a building. He notes that allegations made against these possible defendants can range from negligence, product liability and emotional distress to concealment and misrepresentation.
Who's Likely to Bring Suit?
Those who typically bring lawsuits involving TBS, says Dean, include employees, their employers, unions, building and home owners, lessees, tenants, and others. He further explains that a potentially explosive issue in TBS cases is the contention that a business within a "sick" building has been damaged as a result of loss of employee productivity. Under such circumstances, Dean says, the business will argue that due to the symptoms of its employees, it was no longer able to function productively or to use the office space as promised. He cites among the varied symptoms of reported TBS cases such problems as eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, nausea and dizziness.
Dean notes that indoor air pollution was first classified as TBS during the energy crisis of the 1970s. He says that efforts to reduce energy costs through conservation spawned a trend to design and construct completely sealed, energy efficient commercial office buildings. He explains, further, that indoor air pollution specialists believe that "tight buildings have the effect of sealing in, and in some cases creating contaminants which are inhaled by occupants."
Exacerbating the problem, says Dean, is speculation by indoor air specialists that increasing use of man-made, synthetic, chemically based building materials, furnishings and office supplies such as glues, solvents, cleaning agents, drapes and carpets may give off gases which can combine and lead to unhealthy or uncomfortable levels of concentration.
Problem Hard to Prove
Dean observes that while TBS is becoming recognized as a legitimate health problem from a scientific standpoint, proving that the air in particular building is polluted and harmful in court of law poses a formidable challenge.
He says that indoor air specialists believe that to determine the causes of TBS, a team of experts representing several disciplines-including indoor air quality, toxicology, medicine and engineering-should study the building's heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems thoroughly, analyze air samples, and then coordinate their findings. However, this approach is usually either practically or financially impossible, he notes.
The major difficulty in proving TBS, says Dean, is that no single discipline by itself can provide the overall perspective that is needed to recognize and understand the syndrome. Rather, he observes, the symptoms of air pollution are caused by a complexity of situations and conditions that need to be addressed as a whole.
Dean goes on to explain that identifying a particular chemical or chemicals as the cause of TBS is an obstacle those pressing lawsuits must overcome to prove their case. Elaborating, he underscores the difficulty in isolating specific contaminants or chemicals which are causing health concerns because, unlike other toxic exposure situations, there are usually no objective data which can be specifically referred to and relied upon in court. As a consequence, he says, plaintiffs often seek to rely on epidemiological studies to diagnose the building (rather than the person) as "sick"-and then seek to tie their symptoms to the sick building.
EPA Involved in Major Indoor Air Pollution Lawsuit
QUITE IRONICALLY, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is now involved in a major indoor air pollution lawsuit. Eight EPA employees have filed a multi-million dollar action alleging toxic exposure as a result of a negligent renovation of the EPA's Washington, D.C. headquarters. The named defendants in the action include the owners of the building, the management agent, and the limited partners who owned the building, in their individual capacities.
The plaintiffs in the suit allege that renovations performed on the building were done in a negligent manner so as to permanently disrupt the proper functioning of the building's ventilation system. The plaintiffs also contend fumes emanating from the construction materials and cleaning products recirculated in the building, causing them to suffer headaches, nausea, burning eyes, blurred vision, stomach pains and other problems. The suit alleges the defendants didn't take reasonable steps in hiring, training and supervising the renovators. This suit, at the present time, is proceeding through discovery.