Posted by River City on June 02, 2005 at 06:21:08:
Will the insurer take an inspector’s report stating that there is no presence of mold? Or, will they take an inspector’s statement that the particular type of mold that is present is not a “dangerous” mold? Mold is something that can enter the home from the original builder. And, contrary to what some people think, not all mold is harmful.
If I had water damage in my home and I replaced the carpeting, etc, I would not think that it would automatically mean that I was going to have mold. A seller should not have to include in a disclosure every little accident that has taken place in a home prior to a sale. They should have to include any material defects that are known at the time of the sale.
disclaimers - Posted by bianca
Posted by bianca on June 01, 2005 at 21:33:36:
I just now found out that right before I bought my house 3 years ago there was extensive water damage. Now I am unable to insure the property due to the claim made on it due the possibility of mold. The claim was not in the system when I bought the house so it was not an isuue, nor was I informed of it. Now I am looking to sell the house - what are my responsibillities as a seller? If I can not get it cleared for mold, can I go back on the seller I bought from, since he did not inform me of the damage?
Re: disclaimers - Posted by eric
Posted by eric on June 02, 2005 at 09:17:17:
“Extensive water damage” is a material defect in my book that should have been disclosed. However, disclosure laws are state specific. Also, you will need to check with your state’s statute of limitations laws to see if an action would be time-barred. In CA, it is 3 years from discovery for non-disclosure issues and 4 years for breach of contract.