SAN JOSE — A Santa Clara County judge on Monday handed a billion-dollar victory to 10 California cities and counties that sued the paint industry in the interest of cleaning up old lead toxins permeating the walls of millions of homes.

In a tentative ruling after a 13-year legal wrangle, Judge James P. Kleinberg ordered three corporations — Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries and ConAgra — to put $1.1 billion into a state-held fund that will be used to decontaminate pre-1978 homes that still have coats of lead paint — once an industry standard.

“It’s going to help a lot of kids,” said attorney Nancy Fineman, who was on the team representing Santa Clara County, which filed the initial suit in 2000. “It’s amazing that lead paint was banned in 1978, but it is still in homes throughout the 10 jurisdictions. People paint over it, and when it flakes, people inhale it.”

Testimony during the two-month trial included medical professionals citing brain and neurological damage that can come from ingesting lead. They noted that lead is particularly devastating for young children — who are, according to court documents, more prone to “chew on accessible surfaces and objects, including windowsills and other interior woodwork.”

Complicated case

Fineman said the court trial, which began in July and ended in September, was aimed at finding whether the defendants were liable for creating a public nuisance. Key to the case was whether the defendants promoted lead paint use while knowing it was dangerous.

Bonnie Campbell, spokeswoman for the defendants, said the ruling doesn’t jibe with numerous similar lead-paint nuisance suits across the nation that have been rejected.

“The decision violates the federal and state constitutions by penalizing manufacturers for the truthful advertising of lawful products,” said Campbell, “done at a time when government officials routinely specified those products for use in residential buildings.”

She said health officials didn’t restrict the use of lead paint at the time “because the risks to children alleged today were unknown and unknowable decades ago.”

Fineman firmly disagreed.

“They’re trying to say ‘We didn’t know how bad it was,’ ” he noted, “that it was hazardous for kids at low levels.” She pointed out that the court ruled that the defendants had “constructive knowledge” of the risks, citing articles in medical journals, other litigation and the defendants’ internal publications, going back more than a century.

“It’s a tremendous victory for the children, who have been living with the threat of lead paint for decades,” said Danny Chou, assistant Santa Clara County counsel. “This provides a means to remove the source, and that’s the only way to prevent kids from getting poisoned in the future.”

Abatement program

Los Angeles County, which has more potentially contaminated homes than the other municipalities, could reap the most abatement funds: $605 million. Santa Clara and Alameda counties could each collect $99 million, while San Mateo County is up for $55 million. Other involved parties include San Francisco, Solano, Monterey, San Diego and Ventura counties.

Campbell called it a victory for “scofflaw landlords who are responsible for the risk to children from poorly maintained lead paint.”

“This decision is more likely to hurt children than help them,” Campbell argued, “and it will likely disrupt the sale, rental and market value of all homes and apartments built before 1978.”

The abatement program will be administered by the state, with municipalities prioritizing what residences would be decontaminated first, with preference given to homes with children and high-risk conditions.

Defendants have 15 days to file an objection to the ruling.

Contact Eric Kurhi at 408-920-5852. Follow him at Twitter.com/erickurhi.