Winning a mold exposure case in Maryland rarely turns on one dramatic piece of evidence. It turns on records made while the problem existed, on qualified professionals, and on a clear legal theory. This article explains the legal grounds for a mold claim, the evidence that matters, and what a recent Maryland appellate decision teaches about mold at work.
Most Maryland mold claims against landlords rest on negligence. A tenant must show that the landlord knew or should have known of the leak or mold, failed to act reasonably, and that the failure caused harm. Repeated written complaints that went unanswered often supply the proof of notice.
Other theories can apply as well. A lease may require the landlord to keep the unit in good repair, and a breach of that promise can support a contract claim. Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, Commercial Law Article Section 13-408, allows a person injured by a deceptive trade practice, such as a misrepresentation about a unit's condition, to recover damages and, under that section, reasonable attorney's fees.
Since July 1, 2025, the Maryland Tenant Mold Protection Act has also set deadlines for landlords after a tenant's written notice. The landlord must perform an assessment within 15 days and complete remediation within 45 days after the assessment, or within a reasonable time if that period is not feasible. A landlord who misses those deadlines creates a record that can support a claim. Read more in our article on the Tenant Mold Protection Act.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reports that people in damp, moldy buildings face an increased risk of respiratory problems. NIEHS identifies allergic reactions as the most common health effect and cites research linking mold exposure to cognitive effects, depression, and anxiety. Whether mold caused a particular person's illness is a question for that person's physician.
Evidence of mold disappears quickly once a landlord repaints, tears out drywall, or replaces flooring. Photograph and video the growth, stains, and water damage, and note the date of each image. Keep a written chronology of what you observed and when.
Keep every e-mail, text, portal message, and repair ticket you send or receive, along with the landlord's responses. Make a list of belongings the mold damaged, with an estimated value for each item. Save your lease and any notices about the property.
Mold claims usually depend on two kinds of professionals. An industrial hygienist or qualified mold assessor inspects the home, finds the water source, and documents the type and extent of growth. A physician who treats you decides whether mold exposure explains your symptoms.
Tenants typically hire the assessor themselves, and a lawyer can explain what a thorough inspection looks like. Health care is a separate matter that comes first. If new symptoms begin after exposure to mold or water-damaged building materials, including exposure you did not recognize at the time, see your doctor for care, and share any inspection report so the doctor knows what you have been breathing.
Maryland courts screen expert testimony closely. In Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), the Supreme Court of Maryland adopted the reliability analysis drawn from federal law for expert testimony under Maryland Rule 5-702. A careful differential diagnosis, supported by testing of the home, fits that analysis well.
In In re Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 1554, September Term 2022 (decided May 30, 2024), the Appellate Court of Maryland reviewed a workers' compensation award to a financial adviser. The adviser developed pneumonitis, a serious lung condition, after mold appeared in his Annapolis office. The Workers' Compensation Commission and a jury both found an occupational disease.
The Appellate Court reversed. It held that an occupational disease must arise from a risk that attaches to the type of work, and it found no evidence that mold exposure is a known risk of a financial adviser's job. The adviser's separate accidental injury theory was not before the jury, so the court did not decide it.
The lesson for workers is practical. Mold at work may still support a claim as an accidental injury from a harmful exposure, but the choice of theory matters from the start. Anyone hurt by workplace mold should raise that question early in the claim.
Most mold cases resolve by settlement, often after depositions and expert reports. A fair settlement accounts for medical expenses, lost wages, damaged belongings, and the pain and disruption the exposure caused. Before you sign any release, make sure you understand every claim it gives up.
Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article Section 5-101, a person must file most Maryland personal injury claims within three years. Maryland's discovery rule can affect when that period begins, and courts decide the question on the facts of each case. See our article on Maryland filing deadlines for mold claims.
Christopher L. Beard, an Annapolis attorney, concentrates his practice in toxic mold injury and habitability claims for Maryland tenants. He has filed suit and appeared in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, the circuit courts for Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, and Worcester Counties, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. To discuss a mold injury claim, e-mail chris@attorneybeard.com or call (410) 267-0227.
