Facts

Linda Zarate worked for Oxford Travel Services. Believing the air quality at her workplace was causing her to get sick, Zarate voiced her concerns to Oxford who then notified the building that she worked in, The Molander, of Zarate's complaint. Professional Duct Cleaning Co. cleaned the building's HVAC system. Instead of feeling better, Zarate's symptoms worsened. Zarate filed a lawsuit against The Molander and Professional Duct.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that the exposure to toxic materials including fiberglass in the air caused her to contract a vocal cord ailment. This claim was supported by Professional Duct's own findings of fiberglass deterioration in the HVAC system following a 2004 cleaning. Against the defendants, the plaintiff alleged negligence with respect to the manner in which the HVAC system was maintained and cleaned.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The building claimed that it maintained the HVAC system in an appropriate manner by cleaning it regularly. It also challenged claims that the quality of the air in the building rose to toxic levels as a result of the HVAC system. Upon hearing of the plaintiff's injury, the building claimed it immediately contacted Professional Duct.

The defendant challenged the plaintiff's claim that she inhaled fiberglass, and in the event she had inhaled it, there was no connection between the inhalation and her injuries. The defense did not challenge the plaintiff's claimed damages.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $5,000,000 in past and future damages. She claims she is no longer able to work.

Injuries

Spasmodic dysphonia results from damage to the vocal cords. The plaintiff claimed she contracted the disease as a result of exposure to toxic materials in the defendant's building. As a result, she claims the disease has rendered her unable to speak. It has also caused her to pass out several times and she now believes she is permanently disabled.

Result

Defense judgment on motion for summary judgment which was granted in favor of The Molander. Evidence of a dangerous condition in the building was not found. Further, it was also not determined whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the defendants' alleged negligence. Case settled as to professional duct.