Not one to speak out of line, I spent a lot of time with experts with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), environmental and occupational safety and health lawyers for the State of Florida and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as some past presidents of the Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA). While I have years of experience working on mold-related legal claims, I didn’t want to overlook something that collaboration with these experts would provide in my analysis of the Florida Mold-Related Services Licensing Law (hereafter referred to as The Law). The result of that collaboration has confirmed my own analysis of The Law and highlighted something everyone in Florida should know – for the protection of their health and well-being, the justification of mold-related expenses, the protection from conflict-of-interest practices, and the protection from predators coming into Florida to profit from natural disasters. 

Perhaps the confusion lies in the misreading of The Law? If so, it would be because people fail to understand the expressed purpose of The Law and how to apply 468.8411 Definitions to The Law, itself. The Law defines mold remediation and mold assessment as the activities provided by a licensed mold remediator or mold assessor, clarifying that, as part of those circumstances whereby a licensed professional shall be employed in Florida, such circumstances include situations where “mold growth of greater than 10 square feet” is present “that was not purposely grown at that location”. Several things to understand: (1) the word continuous is not used in The Law, (2) The Law is only concerned with defining those activities requiring licensure for mold remediation or mold assessment, (3) The Law doesn’t state that, although licensure may not be required under The Law, mold assessments aren’t necessary, and (4) The Law doesn’t state that the “mold growth of greater than 10 square feet” be visible, a combination of invisible and visible, or whether known, suspect, or potential is implied.

We were contacted by a condominium owner in Panama City Beach, who stated that some mold was found between the first-floor living room and the second-floor air handler closet after a small portion of the ceiling drywall collapsed. As you can see by the picture to the right, the extent of visible mold colonization was <10 square feet. What you can’t see from this photograph (or by walking the property) is the airborne mold spore population in the neighboring room. During our assessment, we were concerned that there was a potential for poor indoor air quality (IAQ) due to dispersion of mold from the fallen ceiling drywall. Samples were collected in the kitchen (the only other first-floor room) and the upstairs landing. While the upstairs landing’s IAQ was acceptable, the kitchen wasn’t. Had the building owners ignored the need to define the extent of mold contamination in the condominium (based on the false premise that when there’s <10 square feet of continuous mold growth a mold assessment isn't necessary) the extent of mold contamination would never have been defined.