$65 Million Settlement for Children Lead-Poisoned in New Orleans Public Housing

For more than two decades, children living in Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) public housing units were exposed to deteriorating lead-based paint. Lead paint was federally banned for residential use in 1978, but older HANO buildings continued to expose young residents to toxic levels long after that ban took effect. The resulting neurological harm, ranging from developmental delays to lasting cognitive impairment, fell disproportionately on children who had no ability to avoid the contaminated environment their families depended on.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1994 in Civil District Court, Orleans Parish. Plaintiffs sought class certification to pursue claims on behalf of all children who had lived in affected HANO properties and suffered elevated blood-lead levels. The trial court initially denied certification in 1997, but the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and certified the class in 1999. Defendants later sought to decertify the class in 2007; the trial court denied that motion in 2009, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues.

Joseph Bruno served as class counsel throughout the litigation. The plaintiffs argued that HANO and related building contractors had known of the lead-paint hazard for years and failed to remediate it or adequately warn residents. The case required coordinating claims across approximately 2,000 class members, each with individual medical histories tied to their time in affected units.

Settlements with the defendants were reached in 2010, and a court-ordered notice program to eligible class members began in 2011. Insurers agreed to pay a settlement fund of $65,520,174.19 to resolve the claims. The Times-Picayune reported the total recovery for the class at approximately $67 million; with roughly 2,000 eligible claimants, victims received an average of about $17,000 each. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit later addressed fee disputes among class counsel in a 2017 opinion that again confirmed Bruno's role as one of the appointed class attorneys, noting that the fee allocation was set at forty percent of the total settlement amount.