U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs companies over lead paint liability (updated)

Valhi

15/10/2018 14:53

(Adds background on case, paragraphs 4-11)
    By Lawrence Hurley
    WASHINGTON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on
Monday rejected appeals by three paint manufacturers challenging
a California court ruling that held them liable for millions of
dollars in damages relating to the use of lead paint decades
ago.
    The justices left in place the lower court's 2017 ruling
that endorsed a trial judge's finding that the companies had
created a "public nuisance" by concealing dangers posed by lead
paint, which can cause brain damage if ingested. 
    The appeals were brought by: Sherwin-Williams Co SHW.N ;
ConAgra, part of parent company Conagra Brands Inc CAG.N ; and
NL Industries Inc, which is owned by Valhi Inc VHI.N .
    Lead paint was banned by the U.S. government in 1978 for use
in homes but remains a top cause of lead poisoning, especially
for children. The California appeals court said the companies
were liable for the cost of lead abatement in homes built before
1951.
    The long-running litigation, dating back to 2000, stems from
a complaint filed against the companies by 10 local
jurisdictions in California, including Los Angeles County and
the city of San Francisco.
    Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg in
2014 ordered the companies to pay $1.15 billion into a fund used
to locate lead paint in homes in seven counties and three cities
and then to remove it from those residences. 
    Kleinberg found the companies had knowledge of the hazards
of lead paint, including the dangers of childhood lead
poisoning, when they promoted lead paint for domestic use.
    The three companies sought Supreme Court review after the
California Supreme Court in February refused to hear their
appeal. They have said that there is no evidence any injury
traced to lead poisoning came directly from their products and
that liability was imposed based on the companies' promotion of
lead paint at a time when it was legally sold.
    The companies argued that the liability decision violated
their due process rights and the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment protection of free speech.
    A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals, 6th
Appellate District, in 2017 largely upheld Kleinberg's decision,
but nixed the companies' liability for post-1950 homes.
    Similar cases have been brought against paint manufacturers
in Rhode Island, New Jersey and other places in the United
States.
    

 (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Nate
Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)
 ((lawrence.hurley@thomsonreuters.com; Twitter: @lawrencehurley;
+1 202-809-3080))