Sherwin-Williams Co.: Statement on Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion on lead pigment litigation

Contact: Prism Public Affairs

Dale Leibach

(202) 207-3630

Mueller Communications

Lori Richards

(414) 390-5500

Statement by Charles H. Moellenberg, Jr., an attorney for The Sherwin-Williams Company, on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Ruben Baez Godoy v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, et. al., a case that began in January 2006:

“The Wisconsin Supreme Court followed established law by rejecting plaintiff’s claim that lead pigment is defective because it contains lead,” said Charles H. Moellenberg, Jr., an attorney for The Sherwin-Williams Company. “Lead is an inherent part of any lead pigment.”

In its opinion today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings. The Supreme Court said: “We determine that the circuit court correctly concluded that the complaint failed to state claims of defective design. A claim for defective design cannot be maintained where the presence of lead is the alleged defect in design, and its very presence is a characteristic of the product itself. Without lead, there can be no white lead carbonate pigment. The complaint fails to allege a design feature that makes the design of white lead carbonate pigment defective.”

“Interior lead-based house paint has not been made in more than 50 years,” Moellenberg said. “When it was made, it was sought after because it was washable and durable. Federal and state governments recommended and even required the use of lead paint on government housing projects and other buildings until the late 1970s. Litigation alleging novel legal theories against former manufacturers of a lawful product is a distraction from the proven solution of enforcing the law against landlords who neglect their property and expose children to lead paint hazards.”

For more information, visit http://www.leadlawsuits.com