On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:11:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/13/2016 3:12 PM, wrote:


Here's a story that will keep you up nights like it is me. We are being sued by a tenant who occupied a rental home sixteen years ago. They had a child aged two. Allegedly the child was exposed to lead paint. The statute of limitations does not start for minors until they are adults, aged 18 in California. After sixteen years the insurance company doesn't have records of our policy. We don't have the policy. Also, the policy they do have from 2002 has a lead "pollution" exclusion. Welcome to world of lead paint lawsuits.

Over the years I've thought about becoming a slumlord but then I read a
story like yours. Good luck, your case sure sucks.

It would seem to me that the defense would go something like this.
They have to prove that the child was harmed by the lead paint, right?
What proof do they have and if they have proof, why did they wait until
now to sue? If they have medical records, test reports while they
were living there, then they certainly would have contacted you at the
time. So would the state, as they would almost certainly have been in
the loop. Or if they learned of it a year later, again, they should
have contacted you so that this danger could have been fixed before
it happened to the next tenant.

So, when did they first learn of this alleged lead poisoning and how
do they know it was your house that caused it? They may still be
within the statute of limitations, but the longer you let something
go, most times the harder it is to prove your case. What was the
history of the house in those 16 years? Anyone else find a lead
problem? Still own it?