Fungi and bacteria and mold, oh my! An insurance coverage dispute spawned by a moldy motel room in the Poconos ended  in summary judgment on behalf of the insurer. The trial court found that the defendant insurance provider had no duty to defend the plaintiff motel due to an unambiguous “fungi or bacteria” exclusion in the policy.

In Mount Pocono Motel Inc v Tuscarora Wayne Ins Co PICS Case No 15 0555 C P Mon, Luis Noriega (Noriega) rented a room at plaintiff’s mountainside getaway from 2004 – 2009. However, according to Noriega’s complaint, Noriega began to suffer from chest and breathing issues soon after checking into the budget-friendly motel. After venturing into the crawl space behind his room (in 2008) Noriega discovered that the cause of his flu-like symptoms was mold, which was concealed by a fresh layer of paint on his room’s walls. Noriega checked out soon thereafter.

Although the defendant, Tuscarora Wayne Insurance Company (Tuscarora), provided general commercial liability coverage from July 2008 to July 2009, the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas found that the policy clearly and ambiguously excluded coverage for damages relating to bacteria and fungi. The policy’s own definitions lumped mold into the definition of “fungi”, which led the court to believe that the parties intended to exclude coverage for mold-related damages.

Interestingly , the court’s granting of summary judgment relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s precedent that the primary goal in interpreting an insurance policy is to determine the parties’ intentions as manifested by the policy’s terms. Because the court found the language of the policy was clear and unambiguous, it found that Tuscarora had no duty to defend the Mount Pocono Motel in its moldy dispute with Mr. Noriega.  Thanks to Erica Woebse for her contribution to this post.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.