ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERT OPINION IN TOXIC MOLD CASES: HOW ONE STATE’S DECISIVENESS CAN HELP RESOLVE ANOTHER STATE’S UNCERTAINTY

Nearly thirty years after the first mold case made headlines, courts are starting to see a rapid resurgence in a field that had been marginalized for a long time. In the last decade, scientific development and public hysteria have led to an increase in the amount of toxic litigation cases filed with the courts. To make matters worse, natural events have created favorable conditions for this area of law to grow even more. In the near future, mold litigation might see a particularly exponential growth in New Jersey and New York due to Superstorm Sandy, which hit those states on October 29, 2012. Sandy damaged numerous structures and caused those that remained standing to become either contaminated or inaccessible due to toxic mold. New York and New Jersey are two of the states that have been most affected by the storm and are likely to experience a new wave of toxic mold litigation, and possibly a wave of public outcry related to the presence of mold. This time, possible plaintiffs may include not only occupants, but also contractors and volunteers that helped in the post-storm cleanup process. Although the storm is not responsible for all toxic mold litigation cases pending at this time—some of which were filed years before it even took place— this event contributed to bringing back the concern that often accompanies mold litigation, giving new emphasis to unresolved issues related with expert admissibility in this practice. View More