The US Architectural/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry has been inundated with disputes concerning excessive mold growth that arose from improper construction or maintenance of the built environment. 

Despite scientific evidence that shows exposure to so-called ‘toxic’ molds does not produce the much-feared illnesses the popular press warns of, the AEC industry still reacts as if ‘toxic’ mold is dangerous and potentially costly.  This reaction is warranted, but not for obvious reasons. 

After a review of legal and engineering documents, the author argues that the outcome of some ‘toxic’ mold lawsuits hinges on the jurisdiction where a claim is filed, rather than science.

An examination of several US case studies reveals that varying standards governing the admission of expert witness testimony in US Courts may have a direct impact on the end result of legal claims. A basic understanding of ‘hidden’ evidence laws is outlined for those unfamiliar with US Laws of Evidence.