This website is intended to provide information about lead paint and pigment litigation.

Way back to Colonial days, lead-based paint was in great demand because it was washable and durable. The U.S., state, and local governments endorsed the use of lead paint and specified it for use on government buildings until the mid-1970s.

As the knowledge of risks from lead-based paint evolved, the manufacturers did the right thing and acted responsibly. They funded publicly available, “no-strings-attached” research, and they acted voluntarily to withdraw lead-based interior paint decades ahead of federal government action.

The dramatic decrease in children’s blood lead levels of children over the past decades is a public health success story. Blood lead levels are at historic lows because of several factors, including the evolution of knowledge regarding the risk of harm and the prevailing pathways of exposure to children; long-standing regulatory efforts and prevention programs; the establishment and enforcement of guidelines for maintaining existing lead-based paint; and the removal of lead from the environment. Effective laws and programs, including national and state-based Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention programs, address all sources of lead exposure to children, including the predominant sources of lead in soil from leaded gasoline and industrial emissions and in ethnic foods, ceramics, cosmetics, and remedies.

Yet, since 1987, scores of lawsuits have been filed against former manufacturers of lead pigment used in residential paint and companies that bought businesses that once made lead pigment.

Courts have consistently held that landlords are responsible for risks from poorly maintained lead paint. Lawsuits against former manufacturers are without merit and have been rejected by all courts in which the cases are resolved.

This website provides information about the lawsuits.

# # #