Plaintiff leased an apartment from defendant beginning March 1, 2007.  The prior tenant complained of water intrusion, the presence of mold and demanded the performance of air spore testing.  Plaintiff presented evidence of significant water damage photographs from the prior tenant, who was allegedly evicted in response to his complaints.  Defendant obtained air spore samples and performed repairs to stop the water leaks.  The air spore testing revealed the overall interior mold spore counts were lower as compared to outside.  Additionally, all of the results were within normal range.  Despite the test results, plaintiff’s industrial hygienist described the existence of an “indoor mold amplification problem.”  Plaintiff first saw the apartment on February 14, 2007 while repairs were still underway and defendant was in the process of painting the apartment.  Plaintiff signed the lease on February 14 and moved into the apartment on February 18, shortly before the lease term commenced. 

Soon after moving in, plaintiff began experiencing hives, facial paralysis, headaches and fatigue.  These symptoms waxed and waned until June 6, 2007 when she was hospitalized for twelve days.  Plaintiff’s medical expert attributed her physical complaints to exposure to mold while she resided at the apartment.  Plaintiff produced photographs which revealed horrific hives on her body.  At no time during plaintiff’s occupancy of the apartment, did she complain of water intrusion or the presence of mold.  Air spore testing performed on June 7, 2007 again revealed the overall interior mold spore counts were lower as compared to outside.  Additionally, all of the results were within normal range.  After the hospitalization, plaintiff never returned to the apartment and her health has been unremarkable.

Plaintiff sued defendant Strasser for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.  Plaintiff asserted the defendant should have advised her about the prior water leaks and the history of the presence of mold in the apartment.  All causes of action, including a request for punitive damages, were submitted to the jury.

At trial, the defense asserted the property was not in an unreasonably dangerous condition as of February 14, 2007 when plaintiff was initially shown the apartment.  Therefore, defendant did not make any misrepresentations, concealment or omissions regarding the condition of the property when he showed it to plaintiff.  The defendant also asserted plaintiff could not establish her physical complaints were caused by exposure to mold or that there was remarkable mold present in the property during her occupancy.  Plaintiff offered expert testimony at odds with the defense’s position, which was also supported by experts.

The jury returned a defense verdict finding the defendant was not negligent, did not make any fraudulent misrepresentations, did not engage in any deceptive practices, and did not infringe on plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property.  The jury never reached the issue of causation although subsequent informal discussions demonstrated the jurors were persuaded by the credible causation evidence for the defense.