Background
Terrie, Kendall, and Jasmine Fischer sued City Parc @ Keller Apartments after discovering water damage and alleged mold in their apartment. They sought damages for personal injuries, property loss, out-of-pocket expenses, mental anguish, and loss of use of the apartment.
City Parc moved for no-evidence summary judgment after discovery, arguing that the Fischers had not designated experts to establish the presence of mold or causation and had no evidence supporting the elements of a breach-of-contract claim. The Fischers submitted their lease, a municipal code report documenting a water leak, wall damage, and “black bacterial growth,” remediation records, medical records, photographs, evidence of damages, an affidavit, and unsworn declarations. They acknowledged that they were not offering expert medical-causation opinions. The trial court granted City Parc’s motion and rendered a take-nothing judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that claims based on alleged mold exposure are toxic-tort claims involving matters outside ordinary knowledge and experience. Although laypeople may understand that water can cause mold, reliable expert evidence was necessary to show that mold exposure specifically caused the Fischers’ alleged injuries.
The court rejected the Fischers’ argument that expert testimony was unnecessary for their nonmedical claims. Relying on Texas precedent applying the same causation standard to personal-injury and property-damage claims, it concluded that expert evidence was required for all their claims. Because the Fischers presented no expert testimony establishing specific causation, they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and summary judgment was proper.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff alleging injury from mold exposure must ordinarily provide reliable expert evidence establishing specific causation.
- Photographs, inspection reports, medical records, remediation documents, affidavits, and declarations did not substitute for expert causation testimony in this case.
- The court applied the expert-causation requirement to the Fischers’ property claims as well as their personal-injury claims.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that evidence showing water damage or possible biological growth is not, by itself, evidence that mold caused particular health conditions or property losses. Plaintiffs opposing a no-evidence summary-judgment motion in a mold case must present qualified expert evidence connecting the alleged exposure to the claimed harm.