The three former lead paint manufacturers that a jury decided in 2006 were responsible for the cleanup of 240,000 Rhode Island homes contaminated with lead paint appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court Thursday to overturn the jury’s verdict.

Among the arguments filed by the defendants — Sherwin-Williams, Millennium Holdings LLC and NL Industries — are that the state failed to prove any of the companies’ paint was used in any building in Rhode Island and that demanding them to clean up or remove all the lead paint used in the state is excessive.

The cost is estimated at $2.4 billion and would be the state’s largest construction job on record.

Research has shown that inhaling or ingesting even minute quantities of dust or flakes from lead paint can damage the neurological systems of developing children.

Since 1991, more than 36,000 Rhode Island children have been found with elevated lead levels.

The companies maintain that it has not been proved they are responsible for the state’s lead poisonings.

“There is no evidence demonstrating that a single particle of lead pigment actually present in Rhode Island today was manufactured or distributed by any Defendant,” said the brief filed on behalf of Sherwin-Williams. “There is no evidence that a single particle of any Defendant’s lead pigments was ever purchased by a Rhode Island citizen or ever applied to a Rhode Island building. There is no evidence that a single Rhode Island resident has been harmed as a result of ingesting any of the Defendant’s lead products.”

The state tried the defendants on the grounds that the lead paint they sold generations ago is now a public nuisance that they are responsible for cleaning up, said Jack McConnell, a lawyer for the state.

“The difference is that the state brought the case for the collective level of lead in the state,” McConnell said. “The defendants wanted to bring a home-by-home case.”

McConnell calls false the companies’ claims that there is no evidence they have sold lead paint in Rhode and said the state had historians as witnesses who proved the manufacturers’ presence here.

“That is just not true,” McConnell said. “There was sufficient evidence in the record that those defendants were present in Rhode Island.”

The companies also argue that requiring the companies to clean up the poisonous substance, which was used in paint until it was banned in the United States in 1978, violates separation of powers by allowing the judicial branch of the state government to enforce laws relating to the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly in 2002, which requires property owners to bear the responsibility of ensuring their buildings are safe.

If the court denies the appeal, the defendants could be forced to pay for the abatement of the 240,000 homes in the state estimated to contain lead paint, as requested by state Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch.

The outcome of Rhode Island’s lead paint trial is also significant on a national scale.

The jury’s verdict against three of the four defendants (the jury did not find against the fourth defendant, ARCO, but the state filed a brief Thursday to overturn the jury’s acquittal and try the company separately) was the first time a jury has found manufacturers responsible for the cleanup of lead paint as a public nuisance.

If the Rhode Island Supreme Court holds up the jury’s ruling, it will likely set a precedent for other environmental public nuisance cases across the country.

As an example of how many sectors of society will be affected by the outcome of this case, 10 organizations and businesses have filed friend of the court briefs, registering support for the state and the defendants.

Both sides will argue before the state Supreme Court on May 15.

ngarcia@projo.com