Bills opposed by lead paint industry pass out of legislative committee

SACRAMENTO -- Four bills that would make it more difficult for manufacturers to escape lead paint liability, among other proposals, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee over industry objections on Tuesday.

Along the way, the lead author of the bill package had some harsh words for industry lobbyists and the legal rationale they presented.

The package of six bills -- two were not heard in the committee -- are a legislative reaction to a ballot initiative proposed by paint manufacturers. Known as the Healthy Homes and Schools Act, it would create a $2 billion lead abatement fund paid for by public bonds.

Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, is leading the bill package effort. He said the proposed initiative is an attempt by three companies to shield themselves from $1.15 billion in damages in a major lead paint nuisance lawsuit. People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. et al., 2017 DJDAR 10795.

The strategy, he added, appears to be to create voter hysteria around a questionable theory of liability -- specifically that the ruling itself would allow paint companies to sue owners of buildings who try to take advantage of a mitigation program created by the resolution of the lawsuit.

That litigation threat derives from a ruling by the 6th District Court of Appeals. Chiu's AB 2073 would bar such lawsuits against homeowners.

"There were two sentences in a 143-page decision that suggested the possibility that the toxic lead companies might sue a homeowner for merely participating in an abatement program," said Chiu, an attorney. "An owner who does the right thing and removes lead paint from her home should not have to worry about the threat of a frivolous lawsuit."

Dawn Koepke, a lobbyist for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, testified the bill package goes far beyond the scope of the original lawsuit. For instance, AB 2803, a bill that would modify the state Superfund law to declare lead paint a "hazardous substance," could create unforeseen liability.

The scope of the bill goes far beyond the original litigation, she added, which applied only to interior lead paint in pre-1951 buildings. "We're concerned about the impact AB 2803 could have on homeowners as well by deeming their homes public nuisances," Koepke said.

Heidi McAuliffe, vice president of the American Coatings Association, said the case has imposed crippling liability on her industry, which AB 2803 and other bills would exacerbate.

"AB 2803, which provides for even expanded liability beyond that, is inappropriate and deprives manufacturers of basic fairness," she said.