Paint makers try to avoid $2.5B ruling over lead hazard

Lawyers for house-paint providers are due to make their final arguments today in a trial over whether the companies should have to remove lead paint from hundreds of thousands of homes in California, a requirement that could cost the firms up to $2.5B.

The defendants are Sherwin-Williams (SHW) NL Industries (NL), ConAgra (CAG), DuPont (DD) and BP (BP) unit Atlantic-Richfield.

The case has been brought by 10 city and county governments in California, which argue that the lead is harmful to children. Lead has been banned in residential paint since 1978.

From other sites
Comments (13)
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (1070) | Send Message
    35 years ago? The kids should be adults & tested and the paint has 4 more coats over it. Probably would be worse to remove it at this point. Only in CA.
    23 Sep 2013, 07:26 AM Reply Like
  • maudie
    , contributor
    Comments (489) | Send Message
    "And to repeat what I’ve said earlier -- if there is a step we can take that will save even one child, we should take that step."--BHO
    23 Sep 2013, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • pigeonguy
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
    There are parental steps that should be taken in all houses whether lead based paint was used or not. Your children should not chew on baseboards. I raised 3 kids and none of them had this inclination nor would they permitted to do so. If you have a wall with flaking paint then scrape it, sweep and repaint. So simple, anyone can do it except and irresponsible parent.
    23 Sep 2013, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • doc47
    , contributor
    Comments (1837) | Send Message
    I agree with you ron. This is just another greedy lawyer case. Hey lawyers, someone from BP spit in a wilderness area while making the pipeline 30+ years ago, hurry up and file suit!
    23 Sep 2013, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (722) | Send Message
    If governments (taxpayers) think the lead paint should be removed, they should pay for it. The companies did nothing wrong nor did they guarantee that for all time there would be no effects from using their products. If companies had to make such a guarantee, commerce would grind to a halt in America. They are only going after these companies because the people who decided to buy and use the paint and the people who applied the paint can't be found. It was not illegal to make the paint when they made the paint.
    23 Sep 2013, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Ford289HiPo
    , contributor
    Comments (1106) | Send Message
    "If governments (taxpayers) think the lead paint should be removed, they should pay for it."


    Horsehockey. The owner should pay for it. This is just another case of a moocher looking for a handout.
    25 Sep 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • BlueSeas
    , contributor
    Comments (249) | Send Message
    Lawyers gone wild, AGAIN. The Lawyer class will be the undoing of the once great country. When a class of people can suck billions of dollars from the system without any productive input the system is broken. Far too many lawyers "invent" problems. My personal favorite is those idiots pouring gas on fires then getting injured, then suing and winning against the gas can manufacture.
    Congress is full of lawyers and look at the complexity and craziness of the federal code. Shakespeare was right(even if he didn't really mean it:)
    23 Sep 2013, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • Jbgoose
    , contributor
    Comments (3353) | Send Message
    This would be more money than from asbestos cases, huh? Where I live the vast majority of homes are pre 1978, let alone 1950, 1900. This has always been up to parents, yet we unknowingly have lead laced toys and such. There is no widely used, accepted affordable testing. Any funds from this case should really fund a program for all. CA imports the majority of Asian imports, right? Maybe if they set up checking stations, then add them in high traffic retail places like a walmart ..... nips the questionable toys and household items issue in the bud. Heck, they could use this as a huge sales incentive, provide safe items, raise price points and get deeper pockets into the stores. As to paint in a house, if built before '78, you just have lead somewhere and must take precautions (Pay the local permits/fines even if just replacing windows, as example). if you have IKEA furniture, you inhale fumes all day and night, where is that lawsuit?
    23 Sep 2013, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • BlueSeas
    , contributor
    Comments (249) | Send Message
    I think this is really about just getting cash in to the general fund of these cities/counties. Most are probably ready to face bankruptcy and how are they going to pay the welfare checks without new cash flows? Then some scheisse lawyers came along and said "lets make those evil companies pay!!!" Oh and just ignore how much the lawyer cut will be.
    Please don't give those scheisse eating lawyers any ideas or we'll all be sleeping on the floors.
    23 Sep 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • Jbgoose
    , contributor
    Comments (3353) | Send Message
    Yes Blue, Yes... While breathing in fumes from the carpet pads? IKEA furniture, tempurpedic foam, any varnish, stain or paint, bpa lined Chinese Food take out boxes (really), windshield wiper fluid mist run off, fumes from the cargo boats parked off our ports which cause more pollution in one day for SoCal than all cars driven in a year (it is something close to that) ... more ideas for class action suits..... Payday baby!! What a joke.....
    27 Sep 2013, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • daphnex2
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
    I live in California and had my house painted about two years ago. I had to pay about $75 for an 'inspector' to come out and test a sample of the old paint. If the test proved lead in the old paint, I would have to pay to have all the old paint removed before it could be repainted. Thank God, no lead was found. This is just another scam to scrape any extra coins out of the citizens pockets to keep the bureaucracy in robust health. By the way, can you test 40 year old paint and tell which company produced the paint and then make that manufacturer liable?? Sounds crazy to me.
    23 Sep 2013, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Petermc3
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    This is a phony issue promulgated by greedy lawyers and their employees, the politicians. Everyone should know that we baby boomers are brain dead from chewing on our lead pencils in school. Let's sue the department of education for providing pencils, the lumber companies for harvesting the wood, the rubber companies for the rubber erasers. After all had there been no wood and rubber there would have been no way for the lead to have reached us victimized poor unsuspecting little critters. Now then for the manufacturers of mechanical lead pencils..........
    29 Sep 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Jbgoose
    , contributor
    Comments (3353) | Send Message
    I used to stock those lead refills at an office supply store job while in junior high school.... Hmmm. Good Memories.... I think, that lead dust must have gone airborne. can't recall.... class action!
    8 Oct 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs