Coverage For Methamphetamine Contamination

Coverage For Methamphetamine Contamination

by - Keith Frankl
Frankl Law Firm
February 12, 2008

Methamphetamine (meth) contamination to a home can result from the manufacture or just the use and transportation of this hazardous substance.

When contamination occurs, the innocent homeowner or landlord can be faced with cleanup costs of over $30,000. Homeowners' insurance policies frequently contain an escape clause for the insurer called the "contamination clause." Insurers claim they don't have to pay for contamination caused by meth.

A district court recently held that an innocent homeowner can recover the costs of meth cleanup from their homeowners' insurer. Coverage was afforded because the use and manufacture of methamphetamine is vandalism and malicious mischief, not just contamination. Vandalism and malicious mischief is a covered risk in most policies.

Once a dwelling has been contaminated, the health risks for exposure are not fully known, but are believed to be serious. They include affects upon your brain and respiratory system.

In a lawsuit for meth cleanup coverage, homeowners allowed their son-in-law to live in their basement. He used and manufactured methamphetamine on their property. The homeowners made claims against their homeowners' insurer. The homeowners' insurer denied coverage saying that any contamination was not covered.

The homeowners' insurer was unable to avoid coverage using the contamination exclusion. Instead, the court felt that the use and manufacture of meth was vandalism and malicious mischief. Vandalism and malicious mischief was a covered loss. The court felt that the initial claim was for vandalism and malicious mischief and the damage resulting from the claim was contamination. This is not unlike when a fire causes contaminants to be spread throughout the house. Fire is a covered loss and the contamination resulting from the fire is covered.

Landlords also have to be aware of this problem. A tenant who moved into a rental unit without being aware that it had been used as a meth lab became ill. The landlords were forced to pay substantial sums to that tenant. The landlord should have disclosed the risk and should have cleaned the property.