Flashings

NAHB opposes fire association's code

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is recommending its members, affiliated home builder associations and regulators oppose adoption of NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code.™ According to NAHB, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) created NFPA 5000 to compete with the International Code Council's (ICC's) International Building Code, which NAHB supports (see "Consolidation of code organizations," page 57, for more information about ICC).

NAHB says two model building codes will cause additional costs to builders, designers and home buyers.

"NFPA's code adversely will affect housing affordability without any demonstrated need or benefit to home buyers," says Gary Garczynski, NAHB's president.

NAHB urges NFPA to stop code development and work with ICC to integrate NFPA codes and standards into ICC's. For additional information, contact NAHB at (800) 368-5242 or visit www.nahb.org. Mark Graham, NRCA's associate executive director of technical services, is preparing an article about NFPA 5000 for Professional Roofing's February issue.

Medical society issues statement about mold

On Oct. 27, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) issued a position statement about health effects associated with indoor molds. According to the statement, "Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in the home, school or office environments."

ACOEM's statement is consistent with a mold policy position issued by the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII).

"Almost point for point, the ACOEM statement is in full agreement with the NAII policy position on this issue," says NAII Director of Commercial Lines David Golden.

ACOEM's position maintains that though 5 percent of the population may have allergies caused by molds, a majority of people suffer from allergic reactions to outdoor mold. In addition, even those with weak immune systems would be unlikely to develop fungal infections from indoor mold.

ACOEM suggests property owners monitor buildings for mold and eliminate any water source, such as a leak, contributing to mold growth. The statement indicates with regular water-related maintenance, indoor environments can be free of mold growth.

Legislators have begun responding to the mold issue. For example, in California, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas, legislators have established task forces or proposed legislation to develop mold-related guidelines and regulations. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced a bill that would standardize licensing of mold remediators and inspectors. The bill also would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to perform joint research to set standards for acceptable mold levels.

Appellate court decision favors subcontractors

On Nov. 15, 2002, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision that removes subcontractors' obligations to pay general contractors' legal defense costs if a subcontract's indemnity provision is invalid.

The case involves Barton-Malow, a Southfield, Mich.-based general contractor, that was contracted to build a courthouse and subcontracted a majority of the construction work. Barton-Malow was sued by courthouse occupants for "health problems allegedly caused by negligent design and construction." Barton-Malow reached a $9 million settlement with the courthouse occupants and all except six of its subcontractors.

Barton-Malow sued the remaining six subcontractors for contractual indemnity claims to recover some of its defense costs. The trial court decided the indemnity provisions in the subcontracts were invalid but the subcontractors still were obligated to pay a portion of Barton-Malow's defense costs. The subcontractors appealed the trial court's decision, and the case was sent to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled unanimously in favor of the subcontractors.

In his decision, Senior Judge John Scheb wrote, "Because the trial court found the indemnity provision to be invalid and no other contractual provision imposes a duty to defend, the subcontractors have no contractual obligation to indemnify Barton-Malow for its defense costs and attorneys' fees." Scheb explained that the "duty to defend" cannot be separated from an indemnity provision in a subcontract.

The American Subcontractors Association (ASA) submitted a brief in support of the subcontractors' appeal.