A California judge on Tuesday ordered Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and ConAgra Grocery Products LLC to pay $1.15 billion to fund a government-run program to address health risks posed by lead paint in California homes.
The final settlement ordered by California Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg replaces the tentative order issued last month and increases the amount the companies must pay by $50 million. The decision ends the public nuisance litigation brought by Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and seven other California municipalities more than a decade ago by creating a plan to remove the paint from homes.
“Among the rights common to the public is the right to public health,” the order said. “This includes the right to be free from harmful effects of lead in paint. Lead in homes in the jurisdictions is injurious to health and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property [and] is a nuisance that affects entire communities and a considerable number of persons residing in those jurisdictions.”
According to the order, the paint companies are liable because they promoted lead paint for use and should have known about the hazard they would create and that exposure was fatal or at least detrimental to children’s health. After becoming aware of the dangers, the companies continued to sell the paint. Judge Kleinberg rejected the paint companies’ claims that they did not fully know about the hazards.
Due to limited resources, government programs in the California jurisdictions have not significantly reduced the number of homes containing lead paint, the order said. The proposed abatement plan detailed in the court order targets homes in the jurisdictions that pose the greatest risk of lead poisoning to children, requires outreach and education to homeowners and requires trained individuals to inspect homes for lead paint.
“The court is convinced there are thousands of California children in the jurisdictions whose lives can be improved, if not saved through a lead abatement plan,” the order said.
Bonnie J. Campbell, a spokesperson for the paint companies, says the manufacturers plan to appeal the decision.
“The ruling declares that there is no safe lead level, but fails to recognize common sources of lead not from paint in parks, playgrounds, streets, water, and air,” she said in a statement. “This ruling is judicial overreach that improperly takes over the role of the legislature. It creates a massive new public works project that rewards landlords who do not comply with the law.”
The long-running suit, first filed in 2000, seeks to hold numerous gasoline, paint and chemical companies responsible for the “massive public health crisis” caused by lead in California’s homes and public buildings, the complaint said.
California filed its fourth amended complaint in March 2011 on behalf of residents, alleging that the defendants’ production and sale of lead-based paint created a public nuisance and seeking complete abatement of all lead from public and private homes, buildings and properties within the plaintiff’s jurisdiction.
On Dec. 16, Judge Kleinberg tentatively ruled that the paint companies should pay a $1.1 billion judgment, marking the only victory for states in public nuisance litigation against lead pigment makers.
The municipalities are represented by Joseph Cotchett, Nancy Fineman, Aron Liang and Brian Schnarr of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Fidelma Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice LLC, among others.
