‘Sick Building’ Suit Is Settled Abruptly

Tenants who sued the builders and owner of an El Segundo high-rise, alleging that poor ventilation in the structure made them ill, abruptly settled their case Tuesday after three weeks of trial.

Terms of the settlement will be kept secret under a state law that allows private parties to resolve their disputes without revealing financial details.

All sides in the complex dispute--which involved 14 attorneys, a dozen plaintiffs, 10 defendants and nearly 1,500 exhibits--would say only that they are satisfied with the resolution.

The lawsuit, which did not specify the amount of damages sought, arose in 1985 after employees of two small businesses moved into new quarters on the 12th floor of the 23-story Airport Tower C and soon became sickened by construction odors wafting from the building’s ventilation system.

Attorneys for the defendants argued during the trial that the construction fumes were quickly taken care of but that workers continued to complain for no reason. The plaintiffs argued that fumes stayed in the building throughout their tenancy.

Legal experts, who said the case was the first of its kind to go to trial, had hoped the trial’s outcome would help set new precedents for allocating responsibility for what has been called “sick building syndrome.”

Used to describe buildings where poor ventilation combines with a variety of fumes to create indoor air pollution, the syndrome has become more commonplace in recent years, environmental experts say.

Defendants in this case, however, said after the settlement was reached that they still believe there was nothing wrong with the building. New tenants have since moved in, and only one other company has registered minor complaints about air quality problems, lawyers said.

“This was not a sick building,” said attorney Scott Hoyt, who represented Prudential Insurance, former owner of the 23-story building. “This is in no way an admission of liability.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, said their clients would not have accepted the settlement if they had not felt vindicated by it.

“My clients were prepared to go to the jury with this,” attorney Helen Eisenstein said. “They are very satisfied with this.”