PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania couple have restated allegations against the couple who sold them their home, as well as a residential inspection service, after they allegedly developed illness from mold later found to be present in the home.
Brandi Bober and Jamie Semetkosky of New Kensington first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 2 versus Samuel Arabia and Pamela Arabia of Canonsburg, and Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC, of Irwin.
“In the fall of 2021, the Arabias sold the property to plaintiffs. The property included a two-story brick front single-family home. The final settlement date for the property occurred on Nov. 8, 2021. Prior to the final settlement date, CHIS performed a home inspection of the home. For many years prior to the sale of the property from the Arabias to the plaintiffs and through the present time, the home was covered with siding manufactured by Louisiana-Pacific (LP),” the suit said.
“Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs at the time of the sale of the property, the LP siding on the home was defective and for many years it had absorbed water and developed and/or harbored mold, mildew and other toxins. At the time of the sale of the property throughout the fall of 2021, the Arabias were aware that the LP siding on the home was defective and as a result it had absorbed water and/or harbored mold, mildew and other toxins. To that end, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Arabias were class members in a class action lawsuit brought against Louisiana-Pacific which related to the defective siding on the home.”
The suit added that the class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and was brought because the LP siding would, over time, “decay, fall apart, crack and it fostered the development of fungus and mildew – specifically, the siding would break, absorb water, and develop fungus and mildew over time.”
“The Arabias, through their participation in the class action lawsuit or otherwise, became aware of the dangers created by the defective LP siding. As a result of this class action lawsuit, the Arabias received $4,404.18. However, rather than remove the problematic LP siding, the Arabias left it in place and covered most of the LP siding with a layer of new vinyl siding. Despite the Arabias’ knowledge of the defective LP siding, when they sold the property to the plaintiffs, the Arabias did not notify the plaintiffs of the LP siding verbally, in writing, in the Seller Disclosure Statement, or otherwise. The Arabias, as sellers of the property, had a duty to notify the plaintiffs during the sale of the home in fall of 2021 of the defective LP siding and the consequences. Additionally, prior to the final settlement date for the property, CHIS, through its agents, servants or employees, conducted a home inspection on Sept. 8, 2021,” the suit stated.
“At the time of the home inspection, a limited portion of the LP siding was not covered by the new vinyl siding added by the Arabias. While some of the LP siding was exposed and visible, the plaintiffs were not aware and had no way to know that it was defective LP siding that was hazardous, dangerous, and subject to a substantial class action lawsuit. CHIS, through the course of its home inspection, knew or should have known of the defective and hazardous LP siding when it conducted a visual inspection of the outside of the home. Despite this, CHIS did not notify the plaintiffs of the defective and dangerous LP siding. CHIS had a duty to advise the plaintiffs of the defective and dangerous LP siding. In the ensuing months and year after taking possession of the property, plaintiffs began to develop serious health issues.”
Subsequent laboratory tests performed upon the plaintiffs showed “significant exposure to environmental toxins” and investigation later positively identified the presence of “mold, mildew and other toxins in the home” due to the LP siding, thus rendering it uninhabitable.
“As a result of the defendants’ failure to notify plaintiffs of the dangerous and defective LP siding, plaintiff Brandi Bober, suffered the following injuries due to her exposure to the toxins harbored by the LP siding: Mold toxicity, dizziness, nausea, excessive perspiration, an abnormal sensation of movement, vestibular migraine, lightheadedness, disorientation, a bouncing up and down feeling of motion, a feeling of disconnect from her body, migraine symptoms including pain, nausea, and light and sound sensitivity, fatigue, eye strain, cognitive difficulties, joint pain/swelling, tinnitus, anxiety and depression, digestive upset, vomiting, diarrhea and electric shock pains throughout her body,” the suit said.
“As a result of the defendants’ failure to notify plaintiffs of the dangerous and defective LP siding, plaintiff Jamie Semetkosky, suffered the following injuries due to her exposure to the toxins harbored by the LP siding: Mold toxicity, shortness of breath requiring an inhaler, tingling fingers and toes, fatigue, lack of mental focus, extreme cold sensations, sharp body pains, spine and joint pain, muscle fatigue and weakness, sinus drainage, feeling flushed in the face, burning and chilling sensations in her body, heartburn and acid reflux.”
In a Dec. 11 answer and new matter to the complaint, the Arabia defendants denied the plaintiffs’ substantive allegations and charged that they were not responsible for the plaintiffs’ mold exposure-related injuries.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred in whole and/or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against answering defendants. All allegations pertaining to agency, employment, supervision or control are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,” per their new matter, in part.
“At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs assumed the risk of their own conduct, and their claims and causes of action are or may be barred as a matter of law. Any injuries or damages sustained by plaintiffs are due to the intervening, superseding acts of the third parties over whom answering defendants had no control or right of control. Plaintiffs may lack standing to prosecute the causes of action set forth in the plaintiffs’ complaint. The injuries, damages and losses sustained by the plaintiffs, if any, were and/or may have been caused entirely, or may have been contributed to, by the acts and/or omissions of individuals and/or entities over which answering defendants had no control or right of control. No act or omission of answering defendants was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages.”
Lastly, the Arabia defendants also asserted cross-claim liability against their co-defendant, Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC, for the plaintiffs’ damages.
On Dec. 15, defendant Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC filed its own answer, which explained that the inspection report fell outside the statute of limitations and did not require the company to disclose the presence of mold-like substances or other environmental toxins or hazards.
“Plaintiffs fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief may be granted. Any and all damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs are the result of superseding, intervening and/or independent causes. Any and all damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs are the direct and proximate result of other persons, parties and/or forces over which defendant was not responsible and did not control. Defendant asserts and pleads that any alleged claims, damages, injuries or losses of the plaintiffs may either be limited and/or barred pursuant to set off, estoppel, accord and satisfaction, and/or release should the evidence adduced or discovered during the course of this action and/or trial reveal are warranted or applicable. Defendant asserts that this action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“Under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff has one year after the date the home inspection report is delivered to commence an action against a home inspector. Plaintiff received the inspection report shortly after Sept. 8, 2021. Plaintiff commenced this action on or about Nov. 2, 2023. All of plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint against CHIS arise out of the subject inspection report, and are thus time-barred by the Home Inspection Law. Plaintiffs and CHIS entered into an agreement for inspection for CHIS to perform a home inspection of 117 Dinwiddie Drive, New Kensington, Pennsylvania 15068. Neither party has a copy of the signed agreement for inspection.”
The new matter added that the following items were beyond the scope of home inspection: “The presence of asbestos, mold, radon (separate test for an additional fee), formaldehyde, lead, methamphetamine presence, radiation or any other environmental hazards” and the inspector was “not required to determine the presence of plants, animals, and other life forms and substances that may be hazardous or harmful to humans including, but not limited to, wood-destroying organisms, molds and mold-like substances” and “the presence of environmental hazards including, but not limited to, allergens, toxins, carcinogens, electromagnetic radiation, noise, radioactive substances, and contaminants in building materials, soil, water and air”.
“Determining the presence of mold and determining whether materials are subject to recall, controversy, litigation, product liability, and other adverse claims and conditions are outside the scope of the duties of a home inspector,” the new matter added.
Finally, Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC brought its own competing cross-claim and redirected liability for damages back to the Arabia defendants.
UPDATE
On Feb. 23, the plaintiffs replied to each answer and new matter, denying it generally as conclusions of law to which no official response was required.
For counts of negligence, violation of real estate seller disclosure laws, negligent misrepresentation, unfair or deceptive trade practices and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by R. Sean O’Connell of Robb Leonard & Mulvihill, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Suzanne R. Fisher of Cipriani & Werner in Blue Bell and Danielle M. Vugrinovich of Marshall Dennehey, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-012707
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com