10, 2004. On February 16, 2005, a leak occurred in the Subject Premises, as a result of a cracked
toilet in the apartment 5D at the Subject Building. The leak caused damage in all apartments, in
the D line, below apartment 5D, including the Subject Premises. Respondents notified Petitioner
and its agents of the condition the same day. While the leak caused damage requiring repairs in
all D line apartments, only the issues in the Subject Premises resulted in litigation.
Within days, by February 20, 2005, Petitioner had arranged for MAC Painting Systems to go
into the Subject Premises and repair damages (Exhibit 9). BGJ testified that he had read up on
mold situations and disagreed with Petitioner's contractors plan to cut out and replace the
damaged sheetrock. Respondents refused to allow MAC Painting to cut out and replace the
sheetrock, because BGJ believed that since the leak occurred over seventy-two hours earlier, the
Subject Premises would be contaminated if he allowed the repairs to be done [FN1].
On or about March 19, 2005 Petitioner's insurance company hired Donohue
Environmental to go to the Subject Premises and perform a tape test.
On or about March 29, 2005, Petitioner sent Mold Terminators, a mold remediation
company, to inspect the Subject Premises, and perform a tape test on behalf of Petitioner. The
test conducted resulted in a report prepared by EMSL Analytical Inc., a copy was sent to
Respondents on September 6, 2005 (Exhibit dd). The test found acceptable and low levels of a
variety of species of mold in the Subject Premises.
On April 21, 2005 Petitioner sent Respondents a contract and scope of work for Mold
Terminators. Further negotiations took place between the parties, and on August 11, 2005,