by Jacquelyn Horkan, Editor
November 2002
The Armpit of Science
Reuters News Service recently delivered the good news:
Women who use deodorant are not at an increased risk for breast cancer.
The rumor of a link between good hygiene and illness
is just another scare tactic from the junk science purveyors who want us
to believe that chemicals and modern technology are killing the planet and
all who call it home. Now, emanating from the nexus of junk science and
plaintiff lawyers comes the threat of toxic mold.
According to the lawsuits, toxic mold causes
everything from allergies to brain damage and insurance companies must pay
for the injuries suffered by victims of the creeping fungi. More than
9,000 suits have been filed nationally, mostly in Texas and California,
with million-dollar verdicts in a few cases.
Toxic mold is showing some star power, lining up
celebrity victims such as Erin Brockovich and Ed McMahon. The Association
of Trial Lawyers of America has created a toxic-mold group, a sort of
fraternity for fungi attorneys.
The lawsuit threat has now grown so severe that some
homeowners’ insurance cmpanies are withdrawing from certain markets.
According to reports, State Farm Insurance has stopped issuing new
policies in at least 20 states. Farmer’s Insurance, the target of a
Texas jury’s award of $32 million, will not renew the 700,000
homeowner’s policies it has written in the state.
Over the summer, the Florida Department of Insurance
held a series of public hearings on the 250 or so filings for mold
endorsements by insurance carriers. The filings seek to limit the
carriers’ exposure to crippling losses by instituting caps on damages to
or to clarify that the policies only cover clean up of any mold resulting
from of sudden and accidental water loss. Insurers are not seeking a
contraction of the coverage homeowners enjoy now, but rather are trying to
erect a shield against plaintiff lawyers who want to expand coverage
through lawsuits.
The department is expected to release its new
guidelines for mold coverage soon. Some insiders expect Insurance
Commissioner Tom Gallagher to okay caps on damages and to require insurers
to offer supplementary mold coverage beyond the cap at an additional
charge.
The next quandary facing insurance companies: how to
limit their losses on liability policies sold to plumbers and construction
companies, the other favored targets of plaintiff lawyers in mold
litigation.
Gov. Robin Hood
On October 7, 2002, an op-ed piece by John Sweeney,
head of the AFL-CIO, appeared in the Tallahassee
Democrat, pumping for a paid-family leave program along the lines of
the one just enacted in California.
Sweeney’s editorial probably had more to do with
gubernatorial politics than legislative lobbying. Even if Bill McBride,
the candidate favored by Big Labor, were elected, the chances are slim
(but, unfortunately, not neglible) that Florida’s GOP-controlled
legislature would enact a California-style mandate on private-sector
employers.
California paid-family leave program institutes a new
payroll tax that will be extracted from workers’ paychecks and deposited
into the state’s existing disability insurance fund. When the program
goes into effect in 2004, employees will be eligible to receive up to 55
percent of their pay if they want to stay home to care for a sick family
member or domestic partner or to bond with a newborn or recently adopted
child.
The program is guaranteed to prove expensive for
employers, employees, and taxpayers alike. The mandate applies to all
employers with five or more workers — unless the employer happens to be
a government agency. Supporters of the program say that it will only cost
$500 million a year; business groups such as the California Manufacturers
and Technology Association, warn that the actual costs will probably be
double that. Employees who do not have children or have generous paid
leave packages cannot opt out of the program.
With the Golden State facing double-digit budget
deficits for the next five years, Gov. Davis and his band of merry
spenders flew smack into the face of common sense when they ushered this
program into California law. During Davis’s four years in office total
state spending has increased by 37 percent. California’s Legislative
Analyst’s Office reports that per capita spending, adjusted for both
inflation and population growth, has grown by 26 percent since fiscal year
1992.
Davis was one of three governors to earn an “F” in
the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy
on America’s Governors 2000. In the Small Business Survival
Committee’s recent rankings, California made a dismal showing as the 46th worst state for small businesses.
By the way: Gov. Jeb Bush earned an “A” from the
Cato Institute and Florida came in fifth as the best state for small
business.
