CBC MARKETPLACE: YOUR HOME » UFFI
UFFI still having an impact on real estate market
Broadcast: February 22, 2002

If you've ever bought or sold a home, you should have heard of UFFI -- urea formaldehyde foam insulation.

Marketplace did several groundbreaking reports on it 20 years ago. It was banned by the federal government in 1980 amid an uproar that it caused everything from runny noses to cancer. It is still banned. But it was put into an estimated 280,000 houses. And it's almost impossible to remove entirely.

We have found that UFFI still has a major impact in the real estate market. But it is not just buyer beware. It is seller beware too. You can even end up in court.

When Kevin Lauscher and his wife bought their Saskatoon home, they had no idea it would become the centre of a bitter legal battle. The vendors sold them the home with a warranty that it didn't contain UFFI. But it did.

"We were doing renovations to put in a window, and that's when we revealed the UFFI in the walls," he says. "We were lost and angry ... we hadn't been told the truth."

When the Lauschers found out, they sued. They've since moved, but Marketplace took Kevin back to the scene.

The Berryeres, the couple who sold the house, didn't want to appear on camera. But they agreed their lawyer Greg Heinrichs could.

"When they were sued, they were amazed. They couldn't believe what was happening to them. Did they know it had UFFI? They didn't know the UFFI was there. It came as a complete surprise to them," says Heinrichs.

Plugs on the side of the house were a tell-tale sign that UFFI had been installed. The sellers say they didn't know what the plugs meant.

The plugs are a legacy of one of the worst health scares in Canada.

In the 1980s, the government banned UFFI. Earlier, it had given people grants to install UFFI insulation, as part of a drive to save energy. Injected into the wall cavity, the product would then harden.

Then the bubble burst.

The main danger appeared to be formaldehyde gas, seeping from the foam as it dried. Sometimes, it didn't dry properly and mould formed.

When Kevin Lauscher and his family moved into their new home, they experienced headaches and nosebleeds.

"Doctors can't say it was UFFI, but it gradually got worse and when we moved out, it disappeared," he says.

But a scientific debate still rages about whether UFFI was the cause of these health problems.

Epidemiologist and UFFI homeowner Dr. Geoff Norman investigated the issues. He says early research exaggerated the dangers.

"It got an unwitting bad rap, not through anybody's deliberate intentions, but through a bit of sloppy science, through a bit of sloppy reporting and through sloppy politics," Norman says.

Dr. Albert Nantel was a key scientist on the research that led to the UFFI ban.

"I had cases of 4,500 families examined by physicians in Quebec," he says.

As director of the toxicology centre at Laval University Hospital, he is still a leading authority.

"In some houses you could see the mould coming through the walls," says Nantel.

He says in houses where it was properly installed, UFFI stops giving off gas after a few years. It's probably safe for most people.

"But in other houses when you open the walls, you see the disintegration. So it's not right to put (the issue) under the carpet, not because it's a general problem, but because people have a right to know. To check," says Nantel.

Despite all the scientific debate, one important question remains. Should UFFI installations be disclosed in real estate deals?

In Quebec, and Saskatchewan, disclosure of UFFI is voluntary when you put your house on the market. In other provinces, you must tell potential buyers whether or not there's UFFI in the home. Or state you don't know.

In the Saskatoon case, at the time, disclosure was mandatory. The sellers signed a warranty guaranteeing there was no UFFI.

"They went in with their eyes closed and that's always a bad idea," says their lawyer, Greg Heinrichs.

The Lauschers wound up going to court for damages. Not over health problems. The connection couldn't be proven.

At first they wanted payment for removing UFFI and loss of property value. The Lauschers also sued the sellers' and their own real estate agents.

The jury awarded them compensation for the effect UFFI had on property value plus costs. They won almost $65,000

The jury also decided the vendors and the real estate agents had been negligent. And taking into account what the Lauschers had been through, they awarded another $250,000 in punitive damages.

The jury sent a clear message. In this case, UFFI was a serious matter.

"The punitive damages were the most shocking, frightening thing that ever happened to them in their lives," says Heinrichs.

The vendors say lawyer’s fees and other costs already bankrupted them. So the real estate agents had to pay the $65,000 compensation. They declined to be interviewed.

The real estate agents were supposed to check the facts on the contract. The jury also stated that both buyer and vendor were partly responsible for their own problems.

The case is important because tens of thousands of Canadian homes may trigger a similar lawsuit. No one knows how many homes installed with UFFI haven't had it removed.

The moral of this story? If you don't want to end up in court, you can do one of two things. Disclose you have UFFI in your home. Or have a professional inspect your house to make sure there's no UFFI. Ignorance is not bliss. Protect yourself by knowing what may lurk in your home.

NEXT: How to tell if you have UFFI in your home »

^TOP