I recently found out that my rental home was being used as a grow-op. Went into the house and there is mold growing on the walls, ceiling, etc... Does anyone have any experience or advice in cleaning up such a mess??? Is the house salvageable?
In fact, the City will not issue a re-occupancy permit until it has been rated safe by the Health Dept., and the main thing they are concerned about is those pesky moulds. Some of them, particularly the slimy ones in hydroponic operations are highly toxic, even to a mere accidental contact.BYSON said:you're house is fucked the dry wall has to be torn out carpets the celing mold is not a easy thing to get rid of.
Wrong! As of seven years ago I believe, grow-ops are considered an automatic exclusion due to criminal activity, and Insurance companies no longer cover damages from such claims. Landlords now have to foot the bill 100%. My 1998 policy was a border line claim, and even then I had to enlist assistance from a friend in a regulatory agency to force it through. A year later and I would have been SOL. I also had a tough time trying to re-insure this property, eventually finding one company who charged me $3000 for a policy that was loaded with limitations and exclusions.soopergrizz said:Call your insurance broker - if the tenants used it as a grow-op and you had no knowledge, you might have coverage - in which case, the insurer will hire the reclamation folks.
If I hadn't been struck myself, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, during the painful process I was exposed to, I learned enough to know more than the average Joe. While my experience refers to the Lower Mainland, it is one that would probably be similar to any other area that has been victimized by such activity. The Landlord in any case is expected to do due diligence on his property, and is in fact financially responsible for the actions of his tenants as it pertains to the claim anyway. His only recourse is to sue the tenants who committed the offense; of course he is not criminally responsible. Further, municipalities are now holding Landords responsible for consequential damages incurred by the tenants, and these can include claims for negligence, and other claims by the City to either make good the property, or deem it unfit for residence and subject to demolition.soopergrizz said:Slow down Maury.
Some insurance policies specifically exclude damage arising from a grow-op, regardless of the nature of the loss, not all do. It depends on what is in the policy, which we don't have. If there is no exclusion, the insurer will try and say that there was an undisclosed change in the risk; however, the insurer will have to prove that Shinder knew or ought to have known about the illegal activity.
There is no truth to "automatic exclusions for criminal activity", if the one doing the activity is not the homeowner. Otherwise, if you were robbed, you would have no insurance since robbery is a criminal activity.
It appears Shinder has a choice - he can listen to what a bunch of anonymous shitheads (including me) have to say on the subject, or he can speak to his insurance broker and/or a lawyer with some insurance experience before deciding to torch the house and start over.
Given the amount of money at stake, I would encourage you to think about your choices. Feel free to PM me if you want more information.
Other municipalities are also adopting similar bylaws.The city of Port Coquitlam, which toughened up its anti-grow op bylaw in May to include penalties against the homeowner for any city, police and fire employee on site while a grow op is dismantled, opened 21 files this year. The city billed out $108,453, including $60,994 to clean up a meth lab discovered at a townhouse on Shaughnessy Street, said Brian North, PoCo's manager of revenue and collections.
These are just two local quotes on the subject of homeowner responsibility, but there are others if you do a search. As for the robbery comparison, I fail to see the parallel, as the two are different kinds of crime. But, getting back to the topic, in my discussions with insurance adjusters, grow-ops are a specific exclusions in claims of this nature, for the Lower Mainland, and most city centres across Canada. The reason is simple; insurance companies have taken it in the chops, and they responded as they usually do when the cards are not stacked in their favour.With cities enforcing new bylaws that force landlords and owners to foot the bills for grow-op cleanups and the province moving to repossess properties from convicted operators, Pons feels some headway is being made. He hopes the MET will become proactive after it catches up on the routine busts.






