546US1
Unit: $U10
[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 81 (2005)
85
Opinion of the Court
About a year after moving in, they discovered evidence of toxic mold in their apartment. Expert inspection confirmed the presence of mold, which the inspection report linked to hair loss, headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract, fa tigue, and dermatitis. App. 184–190. The report stated that spores from toxigenic mold species were airborne in the apartment and had likely contaminated the carpeting and fabric surfaces throughout the dwelling. Id., at 188. The Roches moved out of their apartment for the remediation process, leaving their personal belongings in the care of Lin coln, the designated property manager of Westfield Village, and the mold treatment firm. 373 F. 3d, at 612. Some months later, the Roches commenced suit, filing two substantially similar complaints in the Circuit Court for Fair fax County, Virginia. App. 27–50, 53–75. Both complaints asserted serious medical ailments from the Roches’ year-long exposure to toxic mold, and sought damages under multiple headings, including negligence, breach of contract, actual fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of Virginia housing regulations. Id., at 38–48, 64–74. In addition, the Roches alleged loss, theft, or destruction of their personal property (including irreplaceable family keepsakes) during the reme diation process. Regarding these losses, they sought dam ages for conversion and infliction of emotional distress. Id., at 49–50, 74–75. In state court, the Roches’ complaints named three defend ants: Lincoln; INVESCO Institutional, an investment man agement group; and State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the alleged owner of Westfield Village. Id., at 26–28, 52–54. The complaints described Lincoln as “a developer and man ager of residential communities, including . . . Westfield Vil lage.” Id., at 27, 53. “[A]cting by and through [its] agents,” the Roches alleged, Lincoln caused the personal injuries of which they complained. Id., at 30, 56. Defendants timely removed the twin cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
