Liability insurance – what would that cover?
1. Does liability insurance cover issues related to removing improperly installed open-cell foam in an attic on the underside of a roof (i.e. all those horror stories about roof rot, or open-cell continually off-gassing or smelling weeks after it was installed, etc..)? Or is that a different type of insurance?
2. Should I specifically ask for the details in the Liability insurance to find out specifically what it covers, is that something contractors should be willing to share?
3. Would Errors/Omissions typically be included in the Liability insurance, or is that separate? Should I be concerned if the foam installer only has Liability but not specifically the errors/omissions (what is my risk there)?
Thank you!
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
As a general rule, contractors can't insure against doing a lousy job. If the building falls down, the comprehensive general liability policy (CGL) will cover the injury., if the insulation makes you sick, it should cover that as well.
A reputable contractor will provide you with a copy of any policy and will, is asked, make you an additional insured.
Errors and omissions coverage is typically available to architects and engineers, not typically contractors, but you need to see the policy.
The answer, “hyper complex” asset protection, insured sole proprietor (SP) vs entity. LLCs multi-member (MMLLC) due to the flexibility of them (ability to write an internal ‘operating agreement’ between partners have become very popular the last decade or so. In some states, the ability to bring in partners makes it more difficult to “pierce the corporate veil”. Take note they have to active partners taking distribution, not your wife that does nothing.
You can obtain liability insurance for a SP, Single Member LLC (SMLLC), or MLLC. The difference between the latters is they will be commercial policies CLP). The commercially insured MMLLC provides more layers of protection than a insured SP without an entity registered with the state.
There is Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance for Engineers and Designers. It can get expensive. Many subs and prime contractors go into grey areas of this law all the time, many out here do when they give advice that could potential cause death. If someone died from a toxic foam installation, if you are SP some would say your personal assets are at a high risk. If you had an insured entity more difficult. The problem with the entity is most states will not allow you to represent yourself in court, so you lost already in attorney fees to defend yourself even if innocent. The first thing a prosecuting attorney will do to a MMLLC is try and prove the plaintiff conducted the business as sole proprietary, find ways that the LLC was not managed as such, like mixing person bank accounts, or any way to show the court the business is not acting like a business to get to personal assets. Banks will rarely lend to an LLC without personal liability.
Some states allow for a complete foreclosure of an member interest in a LLC, others do not but, will allow a creditor to take a members distribution, others allow creditors to manage distributions. Some states have series LLCs, some do not, to move assets to a corporate headquarters away from high risk operations.
Back to E&O and your question. This grey area of E&O you can get insured for has to do with the plaintiff proving that they acted in a general manner conducive to general practices to some standards, like code, AIA, ASHRA, etc…I’d imagine these organizations have plenty of E&O insurance. Other than being hyper-complex, there are tax considerations. Perhaps the best legal protection comes from operating your business in an ethical manner. There are people such as contractor testifying in court for a price against others that knew better to put toxins in homes. With all the stigma surrounding SPF, unless your find an eco one, I’d stay away from it. Create an LLC, MMLLC is better, get a 2 mil CLP, keep your nose clean.
Here is a good read on holding title, a trust is another way….. http://www.johntreed.com/entity.html
Now that you know the basics go hire an attorney, cpa, and good insurance agent to get the real answer. Find good contract and entity law attorney's, get good contracts and legal structure in place. Legal structure and insurance are two entirely different sets of laws, most do not understand, what one may cover in a contract or not, the other will or not.
George,
If you are a homeowner interviewing contractors, it's normal to ask to see a copy of their contractor's liability policy. The policy should cover the costs associated with accidents related to construction, including accidental fires or damages to a client's home. It should also cover injuries resulting from the contractor's work.
As the other commenters have pointed out, errors & omissions insurance is something for architects and engineers -- not all of whom choose to carry it.
When a spray foam job goes wrong, liability is never clear, and there is no guarantee that the homeowner's expenses will be covered. Here are some things that happen in such cases: the contractor blames the manufacturer of the chemicals. The manufacturer blames the contractor. Everyone involved except the homeowner disputes that the smells are caused by the spray foam. Negotiations are long and inconsequential.
If you want to know more, bring the liability insurance policy to your lawyer before you hire a contractor, and ask your lawyer questions.
Expanding on Martin's response, no one should assume that a contractor is carrying Builder's Risk insurance, which covers fire, etc. damage to a structure under construction. The owner should consult his/her insurance agent.
I once represented a contractor whose builder's risk policy expired and wasn't renewed by his agent. The day before the large elderly housing project's opening ceremony was to be held, the place burned down. No insurance, although the agent's E&O coverage eventually paid some, after protracted litigation.
"As the other commenters have pointed out, errors & omissions insurance is something for architects and engineers -- not all of whom choose to carry it."
Martin, as far as I know anyone can get an E&O policy and the under writer does not require a licensed Engineer to issue one. The way my agent explained it to me is, and I asked since I am an Engineer of different sorts but not licensed in my state, that the expectations or laws of the land would not have more requirements on me than the average home owner or GC. I'm sure that depends on the state, here anyone can design a SFH or duplex without a license 2-plex+ or commercial needs a license. It is best to read the policy in depth, mine states that if "I fail to hire an Engineer" then we as a company are at risk of not being insured, our assets, but again good luck getting to them it will not be easy due to a new LLC state law in 2014. We have become a very friendly corporate law state, DE, WY, NV are others.
So the bottom line is if I put a known toxin in a home and I can prove that is common and per the manufactures instructions, and I didn't put some unknown chemical in the home say I created, I am covered by my CLP. Our contracts also state the same although it may not hold up in court, pre-dismissing our liability. If it can be proven I'm outside of league and I should have hired a licensed Engineer, chemist, industrial engineer or hygienist, then my CPL may not cover it and I should have E&O. I'd imagine an electrical sub that is making decisions like this not being insured as a GC might have a harder time proving innocence. I could see the manufacture being the blame if they lied on the MSDS which is usually not the case. Most MSDS make it very clear in the case of foam that there are toxins, it is also all over the internet. I can see this one getting people into law suits and a grey area to avoid the risk of paying an attorney to defend.
Martin wrote " If you want to know more, bring the liability insurance policy to your lawyer before you hire a contractor, and ask your lawyer questions."
You can do this but don't be surprised if they send you a bill for $10,000. Read the policy yourself, ask a knowledgeable agent question, if they do not know ask your attorney. I recently developed a proprietary hemp binder along this line, like of foam but different. My attorney and agent both had common advice, create a separate entity and E&O insure it. Perhaps overkill since it will be VERY difficult for a client to prove causality of the foam producing cancer, respiratory disease, or death...the court may be able too draw a correlation to it but, there also may be alot of correlations drawn depending on the clients lifestyle.
We also have our subs list us on their Workers Comp policies, along with a good sub-contractor agreement our attorney wrote to include insurance requirements, Indemnity, waiver of claims, to the extent allowed by state law.
Like I said hyper-complex there is no way to predetermine the outcome of a court of law. I get a kick out of homeowner's or real-estate investors that act as GC's not knowing all this or having it in place. Unless there is some tolerance for them I don't know about, they'll find out in court they should have just hired a GC, or Engineer, with a CLP and/or E&O. We are thinking about adding an umbrella for additional protection as assets grow. If you don't have assets to protect a good insurance policy may be all you need, that is if you don't consider your future income earning potential and judgements against it an asset.
So here are my answer to the questions, right, wrong, or indifferent.....
1-2. You can ask for the verbiage in the policy but the policy may not list everything it does or does not cover, it can't, there are to many scenario's. Look at the exclusions and endorsements.
3. The installer may or not have coverage for foam toxins being proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have caused some heath issue, it is very unlikely this can be proven. If the contractor want to install a proprietary foam and will not disclose the chemical content allowed by OSHA you may want to avoid this. That is your risk if you are the homeowner, if you are the GC you may or not have risk other than defending yourself in court, it can get grey....In either case, look at the MSDS to assess your risk.
Here's my take after a decade of spray foam use and non use.
I tried using open cell water blown Icynene. After 8 years the homes have no issues. Why? Well, the weather was the best and least likely to cause problems. The product is one of the easier ones not to screw up. The guys had sprayed enough homes to be able to do it right at least for my spray.
Still, I feel lucky that I have had no call back. Really lucky.
The stuff would be a nightmare to defend against in a lawsuit IMO.
Actually doing construction today is a goofy choice if one want low liability. Every night on the tube there are commercials with lawyers telling a guy to speed dial them as they leap off scaffolding.
No contractors carry what I call completed operations which would cover doing bad faulty work. We carry insurance for someone other than us getting hurt. Best part I am told is that the insurance pays for the lawyers... Wouldn't it be great to get $800/hour including driving to and from meeting you... nice. And retainers... $5,000 down to have your name put on a 1 cent manilla folder and then tossed to the bottom of a 3 month backlog pile.
My advice today is to use very little or no spray foam in new construction unless really really wanting it. And am not in favor of using it ever in a home that is occupied.
If one has any hesitation just don't use it. There are alternatives today.
If you do use spray foam, weather matters tremendously along with crew experience. Don't ever ask them to do something they don't do daily, like some dreamed up internet one of kind idea the crew knows not about.
Terry: until my recent retirement ,I represented contractors, subs and owners. I was often asked to review insurance policies. $10,000 would be absurd. A competent, experienced lawyer can review a policy in an hour or two, because CGL policies are all similar, if not mostly identical.
What gets expensive is defending a client who thought he didn't need to ask his lawyer for advice.
Being insured is essential, no matter what sort of entity you do business as. The more expensive the problem, the more likely a plaintiff's attorney is to sue you as an individual. The legal fees will kill you.
Stephen, agree on being insured. My attorney has 40 years as a contracts law attorney representing home owners, CG's, Engineers, etc..He charges me what he calls his "western rate" $250 hour, vs $300+ normally and in the last firm he worked in. Each of the 5 contracts he wrote for us lately, on average $2,000 each. We called him on it saying just pull them off the internet and rewrite to state law can't be more than an hour or two. He said check around see if you find another attorney to do it cheaper, well he was right the good attorney are not interested in making a few bucks reading insurance policies, they are too busy making bigger money...they all around here anyway seem to think it is not just the chargeable hours but their experience you pay for. When I ask him about LLC, IP, he refers me to my agent or another attorney....what area of law is a CLP? Personal Injury?
As I said, our policy is written vaguely in general terms needing a jury or judge to interpret it for a specific occurrences, including all the technical facts. Mine does not have the specifics with regard to foam or toxic foams, and I'd like to see a case where an attorney was able to pre-advice a client accurately without having all the facts of the case at hand? Please post one? Otherwise, I don't see the need to go to an attorney and pay them to look at a policy....the disclosure laws surrounding insurance liability and WC is messed up, it needs to made clear just as the heath insurance policies have done, simple to read bullets including exclusions. The first thing an insurance company will do is try to find a way to deny the claim through the vague wording in their policies, then the holder has to pay attorney fees to fight them. I have cases in my business that the policy was not clear at all, and it is a good policy by a big carrier Appalachian. My very experienced 30+ year agent tells me none of the policies can list all the possible facts and in all possible cases, it's just not mine no need to switch we have looked. It does not mean they are not covered, they may or may not be. I got to thinking what a mess! I called the state insurance commissions office, they can get away with this. One reason why we have an LLC that has a defined business model "GC" that is insured to do the business of that model. We step outside of that model like we a new mortar we create another entity, and get another type of insurance, e&o...that helps...they way we avoid, or try to avoid, defense fees is keep our nose clean, run the business ethically, and that for us is not using a known toxic foam for one. It's simple, really the answer is no! I do not need to hire an attorney to figure that one out.
This looks like a good sealant, gets deeper in, watch the video, if you can find a local distributor. We got an estimate for a 2500 ft2 home of 3-5 gal buckets less than $1000. A painter trade with an airless gun installs it. Id also use a ZIP sheathing as redundancy since none of the sealants will last forever depending on the environment they are subjected to.....Id also try and isolate the sealants from atmosphere with a chemically inert non fungi-corrosive mineral wool or pure glass insulation.
http://ecoseal.knaufinsulation.us/
I read all the posts here with great interest. You really want to know (as a consumer) what happens when your contractor installs spray foam in your home and it fails? See;
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0353.htm
Read my testimony below before the Connecticut General Law Committee during a public hearing on proposed Connecticut House Bill 5908 below. To think I'm 4 years into this now and no insurance company has agreed to pay for any of the already admitted to damages is amazing at best. Now we all are in Federal Court because the chemical manufacturer's involved moved it there:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/GLdata/Tmy/2013HB-05908-R000221-Richard%20Beyer-TMY.PDF
Most all contractors and homeowners insurance does not cover this product. This also includes the chemical manufacturers insurance as shown here...
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=33420c25-d63d-4421-be7a-9168afa51b27
E&O insurance is what CUFCA (the U.S. version of SPFA) in Canada recommends SPF contractors carry. A SPF contractor informed me they carry Contractors Pollution Liability Insurance (CPL) here in the states.
The question over failure is dependent on the accusation and/or error's caused by the contractor in question. In almost all of the legal cases I am aware of throughout this country the chemical manufacturers do not allow to many of these cases to last long in Superior Court. The cases are moved directly to Federal Court where lawyer fees approach $1,000.00+ per hour. If your a contractor or homeowner inquiring on insurance you know $1,000.00+ per hour does not go far and after reading my story I would hope you will look into your insurance policy with a fine toothed comb. It's not worth skimping on insurance when your messing with chemicals like this one.
Here's another wake up call contractors and homeowners.... If your not insured properly and you run into this mess, good luck finding a lawyer to represent you when they learn spray foam is at issue. There's minimal case law to make a slam dunk for most lawyers who ordinarily look for case law to defend a suit or to create a suit.
A consumer only knows what the chemical manufacturer and or insulation companies want to disclose. This is what OSHA had to say about MSDS disclosure to consumers......
"Please be aware that OSHA does not require manufacturers to provide or post MSDSs on their web sites. Many chemical product manufacturers do provide this information as a courtesy to the public and to their customers, but they are under no statutory obligation to do so."
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27005
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27011
First off Richard, sorry that happen to you, what a horror story and nice job writing the letter and government and public awareness.....
Looks like my $10,000 legal fee estimate for bogus advice was low, try 10-20 times that for a couple of hours that gets you nowhere.....
Icynene has warning's all over it's MSDS, this one is interesting.....
"Reacts slowly with water to produce carbon dioxide which may rupture
closed containers. This reaction accelerates at higher temperatures. "
I know sealants phase change, expand and contract, when exposed to heat and moisture, some like lime and certain clay soils have an ability to self cure, others do not have the plasticity or exhibit too high of a shrinkage rate and crack, happens with plasters, stucco's, concrete, portland cement, etc....off gas in the process. Most of the industry is placing SPF in attics and wall studs where it is subjected to heat and moisture cycles, acids, salts, other mating material incompatibilities (phenoilc resign and cats, oils in OSB, plywood, treated wood with copper and zinc borates, paints, etc).
In aircraft design for large corporations we have Material Technology Engineers and Chemist review our materials designs for toxins and compatibility. What makes the construction industry think some yahoo's on the internet or installer's have the know how to act as such is absurd! The government can't really control it, it is way too technically complicated for anyone other than these professionals to understand or advise, they will leave the confusion to the lawyers and private sector.
As cases like yours drag through court to determine fault, everyone from the homeowner to the prime or sub contractors loose, the attorney's win. It will only get better for the attorney's as we seal, not only SPF in building's, but a large array of other products to 3-5 ACH per 2012 IRC. The ones that will get hit the hardest is the installer or GC that made decisions that they should have hired industrial hygienist, engineers, or chemist with E&O to decide. The government can perhaps better control quality and disclosure by law on the MSDS and stop these companies from lieing on data sheets by huge fines, so the chemist can do their job without having to run indi lab test at clients expense....
Besides health issues, room temp cure adhesives do not last and are not stable. The strongest synthetic ones based a lap shear and tensile strengths are installed in a clean room under heat and pressure. It is probably the most inefficient method to sustain a seal, the cure temp has alot to do with stability at room and elevated temp or a certain temp range. Look at how OSB, plywood, is manufactured to get a hint here.
Lime based plasters and sealants absorb C02. Installed as an oxide, when hydrated they self cure when they phase change back to a solid rock, limestone. Lime has cement like property being calcium oxide, or type N mortar, or "high calcium lime" If you want more a seal or cement-hydraulic-hydro management properties when installing in a wet environments use type S that also contains magnesium for addition cement and binding. For air sealing stay away from types NA and SA "air limes' with higher perms. If you want even more of a cement, add a pozzolan like fly ash, lastly portland cement. My experiments show a good bond to wood or cellulose, especially ones that have high silica content (above 40%).
There is no reason to use toxic junk! Look at all the risk. Good luck, hope you win the case.
"OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations"...
Then those criteria are wrong! If a foam material like this causes workers health hazards to have to maintain it, modify, R&R, then the cured out-gassing IS a hazard to employees. It is no different than sanding lead base paint or being exposed to asbestos. You do not just put hazard info out there for raw materials, then disregard what happens when they are combined over time. How often throughout history does any product put into a home not require some level of maintenance.
And here I thought the MSDS was all informative and a design guide. Who in their right mind, what standard committee, reg developer, or law maker can be so stupid not to look beyond raw materials and the installation over time? That is why I have no faith in our government or these standards like ASTM, ISO, noted as manufacture data since they do not inspect to the standard, or do random spot checks, the manufacture can say they comply with ASTM blah, blah,and never do, a bunch of yahoos out of touch with reality. ASTM is a marketing tool so companies can look good to the public.
We are about ready to adopt 2012 IRC, 3 ACH, we have no energy code now..and I told the code board and local builder's association I know exactly how most builders will seal with toxic SPF and the inspectors are going to need IAQ meters. They are bringing in some consulting firm to help adopt, I told them it is opening up a can of worms until these cases and ventilation rates are better regulated and understood. I guess if code is driving the requirements insurance will cover it, just a matter of who's insurance?
EPA, did you not find any other government bodies that are suppose to regulate the out-gasing or MSDS Richard? Thanks, for posting that now I know. What a mess!
Terry asked; "did you not find any other government bodies that are suppose to regulate the out-gasing or MSDS Richard?"
Answer is No.
This is what the CT Department of Public Health has to say about IAQ testing...
http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/ieq_testing_should_not_be_the_first_move_6-10.pdf
Speaking of ASTM.. Read this! There's no ASTM standard for this product either.
http://www.astm.org/SYMPOSIA/filtrexx40.cgi?+-P+EVENT_ID+2626+callforpapers.frm
CT-DPH talks out of both sides of their mouth, by first identifying the complexity of testing IAQ then putting it to a visual pre-inspection conducted by unqualified home owners, nurses that probably have no clue, and others......The professional IAQ "Industrial Hygienist" needs to function as a project lead calling in other professionals as required to cut the process and confusion time down, dah! You do not put the selection of professionals in the hands non-qualified persons either, just as the testing and remedy itself. They do on the positive side make some good points, just not a very good solution and approach.
Good info on ASTM, thank you! I will forward that to out B&S office. It does no good to create a test standard that does not have a means to enforce it. The building industry is complex that way, given the above. In my experience, the quality control regulations companies do on their suppliers falls in this line of reasoning. There are usually teams that get involved in the prototype testing and set the production line configuration. Once it is documented and approved by the OEM it can not change for production without written approval. The OEM can also do spot checks and take test samples from the assy line at any time. That is Quality Control and difficult for the government to get in the middle of. The ASTM standard needs to address QC as part of compliance to the standard, not allow adherence marketing or labeling to it without it, just as most industry standards do.
Given that SPF is in the lime light of all this controversy it should be banned by the EPA until things get under control. No one should use it anymore, period, and support the money making bureaucracy, nor chance their health as I said many post ago. There are far better natural products to choose from.
Terry,
I 100% agree with this statement made by you, "Given that SPF is in the lime light of all this controversy it should be banned by the EPA until things get under control. No one should use it anymore, period, and support the money making bureaucracy, nor chance their health as I said many post ago. There are far better natural products to choose from."
EPA proposed ban.... http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2011/2011-04-16-092.html
EPA Power Point.... http://www.asse.org/professionalaffairs_new/PtD/Practice%20Issues/Anjali%20Lamba.pdf
Toxicity of spray foam amines.... http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/129845/amine.pdf
CDC...... http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/03/21/sprayfoam/
The EPA made an attempt to ban the product as shown with little success. They were not financially prepared for the battle the chemical industry was willing to wage.
A compromise was assembled called a task force. Made up of government agencies (OSHA, EPA, CPSC, NIOSH) was created with a joint venture of chemical industry representatives (SPFA, ACC, CPI). This was created in 2009 even though these reports were published. In 2012 the EPA started printing vague consumer warnings via Design for the Environment. Today (2014) the warnings are better, but toxic chemicals are still being pumped and manufactured inside of homes.
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/spf/spray_polyurethane_foam.html
The government leaves the hazard up to the consumer to deal with. To date (2014) there are no published remediation standards developed or IAQ standards. If a consumer wants to test their home correctly they have to convince the chemical company to disclose the chemicals to them. Under law the chemical company does not have to release this proprietary chemical information leaving the consumer no other avenue to test.
As for IAQ professionals... This is up for debate. IAQ hygienist's are not required to be licensed in almost all states to collect samples and advise consumers. They do not have to maintain a high school diploma either. Technically speaking a consumer could perform the test the same as or better than a hygienist if they are capable of following directions. If they plan to use the samples in court it's not going to hold much credibility. On the other hand a chemical engineer is required to be licensed and is required to maintain some form of higher education in the form of a college degree. With this said, the system for checks and balances is majorly flawed. Consumers are not protected and are advised through trial and error.
Now imagine the outcry of the public if they learned the airplanes they fly on were assembled without regulation and it made them sick?
In my opinion, the SPFI chemical industry motto and behavior follow this rule.....
"Finally, it's no problem, if it happens to someone else."
Insane! Thanks for the education and all the information. I did not read it all, all I needed to see is the massive amounts of warning's and unknowns. How this product has gained such a high use status is beyond logic. I did not know that about IH, assuming they all knew what they are doing after seeing a report one filed in CA showing manufactures lied on their data sheets. Chemist, agreed, very expensive!
I'm thinking of releasing a new mortar and was not sure who regulated the MSDS. I thought I read somewhere that companies can state the words "proprietary blends" on their containers labeling if they proved to OSHA there are no hazards? Now which I understand better thanks to you are only for workers. Who controls the label requirements on the container or bag? EPA or OSHA? I see "proprietary blend" on mortars all the time. I have one I am looking at distributing and was thinking of using this term even though I would never buy a product that was not fully disclosed. The problem is if you disclose you ruin your competitive edge. My mortar is 100% natural and absorb CO2 after installation and cure, although there are some uncured warning's I need a MSDS for. My AHJ says I need their approval under IRC chapter 1 "alternate materials" , not sure that is the case since other companies can distribute and use it in the jurisdiction without approval, mine would be distributed internationally and I believe all I legally have to answer to are the feds, OSHA and EPA. My contract lawyer has no idea, out of his area of practice.
EDIT: Forgot to ask do you know of a good IAQ meter?
Perhaps I should eat some crow for recommending Ecoseal The MSDS states in the "reactivity section",
"Hazardous Decomposition Products: Thermal degradation can generate Carbon oxides, Nitrogen oxides, Phosphorous oxides, Sulfur oxides, Hydrochloric acid, Chloride gas, Hydrogen Bromide, irritating gases and vapors. "
Thermal degradation is probably what happen to the SPF to cause it to outgas and explode, this elastomer or rubber made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, silicon, is no different when it reaches it's class transition or past it's melting temp, neither are listed. You read the data sheets and no where do you find they performed in a lab an accelerate fatigue temp and pressure cycle test showing they took it to this state or failure, and measured carbon monoxide, dioxide, and the acids, etc, listed by an ASTM. They did some cure test up to 7 days that's it.
http://ecoseal.knaufinsulation.us/documents/EcoSeal%20MSDS%2005-29-12.pdf
Q: "Who controls the label requirements on the container or bag? EPA or OSHA?"
A: Best to consult with both. Here's a link you may have interest in.
OSHA Brief
Hazard Communication Standard: Safety Data Sheets
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3514.html
Q: "Forgot to ask do you know of a good IAQ meter?"
A: No. Test methods are based on the material your seeking answers to. ASTM has published methods for most building materials and the testing methods they recommend. See: http://www.astm.org/
If there's a question you would need to consult an Industrial Chemical Engineer.
http://pubs.acs.org/journal/iecred
FYI.. Hazardous Decomposition Products defined:
Hazardous decomposition products are formed when a material decomposes (breaks down) because it is unstable, or reacts with common materials such as water or oxygen (in air). This information should be considered when planning storage and handling procedures.
As with most published testing the manufacturer publishes what looks best for their bottom line. If the product shows detrimental effects on day 8 we both know that will be withheld. The result published will be day 7.
Example: GMO tests initiated on rats with a 90 DAY TRIAL illustrated just over 60 days the mice came down with cancer. Industry published their test results on a 60 DAY TRIAL showing positive results. Depending on who performs the test will depend on the outcome.
Back to the original question; " Does liability insurance cover issues related to removing improperly installed open-cell foam in an attic on the underside of a roof"
Here's an attachment of a court case answering the question. As this shows Error's and Omissions does apply.
http://www.insurerereport.com/files/yeager-v.-polyurethane-foam-insulation-llc.pdf
The way I interpret that case is first off PFI was in “error”, several, that were not defined as an accident, or “repeated exposure to a harmful condition”. PFI created property damage by not installing SPF correctly, there was no occurrence (or accident) just poor workmanship.
I think where Yeager made a mistake by not being listed as an “insured” in PFI’s GLP. There was only a $10,000 limit, if Yeager is the homeowner, or GC, I imagine they are trying to re-cope losses PFI refused to pay. We are listed as an “insured” on all our subs policies, or they do not work for us. It is also in the legal contract we have with them.
“Under the endorsement, Society owed a duty of [*12] defense only to its insured, PFI, and the duty to defend benefits PFI alone. Yeager was not a party to the insurance contract, and, to the extent he argues he is a third-party beneficiary of that contract, we reject his contention:”
“In the absence of express provisions in the policy or statutory provisions which can be read into the policy, a standard liability policy does not make the injured party a third-party beneficiary. The general rule on third-party beneficiaries in Wisconsin is that one claiming such status must show that the contract was entered into by the parties directly and primarily for his benefit. The benefit must be more than merely incidental to the agreement.”
Sounds like Society could have fought PFI’s claim for the $10,000 E&O but it was not worth it, so they gave in. This all falls under “property damage” from negligence on the prime or subs part. Toxins I believe falls into “personal injury” and those limits, I believe I’m not attorney or agent. Our sub-contract agreements have strong hold harmless, subrogation, waiver of consequential damages, risk of loss, failure to perform, clauses.
This is where homeowners get into trouble not hiring a GC or prime contractor that have the management, in-site, insurance, and contracts in place. Most HO's end up like Yeager, no coverage and lots of attorney fees to pay. PFI got the $10,000 E&O, not Yeager, so for them it ‘mattered’.
If we had handled this job first off our project managers would not let it get this far, our client would never go to court and the only reason we would be to testify against PFI. We would take care of the damages to the client, PFI would have no recourse but to pay us for the damages or file for bankruptcy protection. The irony is we probably would have done the job for equal to or less than the homeowner that acted like a prime paid a sub.