Dear Editor: 

I read with amazement Mr. Jowers' article entitled "The Mold Rush." It appears that Mr. Jowers did not do any research before
he put pen to paper. 

The case he sites (Ballard v. Farmers Insurance) was not a toxic mold case but a bad faith and fraud case. 

Farmers, in writing, refused to allow the policyholder to make repairs to the home after water damage stating that if the
homeowner did make repairs, she would lose coverage. Plumbing leaks were fixed, however.  Mr. Jowers would have the
readers believe that the homeowner was negligent. That's just not true. In fact, evidence presented is to the contrary. 

Farmers Insurance, long before the first leak was ever reported in this house, had been sued for similar toxic mold infestations
in other regions of the country. Insurance companies have known for years the that toxic mold will grow if wet building materials
are left in place for long periods of time. Regardless of their prior experience, Farmers refused to allow wet building materials to
be removed. 

During trial, Farmers personnel admitted to knowingly and intentionally defrauding its policyholder. Then, executives from
Farmers stated that if they had the Ballard claim to handle all over again today, they would handle it the same way. 

I should know: I am the plaintiff in the case. 

This case is an excellent example of insurance industry bad faith and fraud. Insurance companies often resort to fraud and
bad faith and their behavior should be punished. 

While I am not a proponent of litigation (I was left with no choice), I believe that suits will be curbed only after legislators
mandate that fraud, bad faith and unfair claims handling practices will not be tolerated.   

Next time Mr. Jowers decides to speak authoritatively, please ask him to do some research first. 

Thanks. 

Melinda Ballard 
Dripping Springs, Texas 
(512) 347-8779