Superior Court Upholds Challenge to Lead Safety Certification and Inspection Process in Philadelphia

In a recent opinion handed down by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Cooper v. SGYS St. Ives, 2025 Pa Super. LEXIS 126 (Pa. Super. Ct. March 19, 2025), a group of tenants in Philadelphia challenged whether their landlord made sufficient lead-based paint disclosures to them under Philadelphia’s lead paint disclosure and certification ordinance, Phila. Code, Chapter 6-800.

The litigation in Cooper centered on a unit located in a 516-unit apartment building situated in the northeast section of Philadelphia, the opinion said.

The tenants in Cooper originally signed a written lease with the landlord for their unit in 2019, and subsequently renewed the written lease in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

At the heart of the dispute is the written lease entered into by the parties in 2019, which included a written notice regarding lead-based paint, as mandated under the lead disclosure ordinance. That written notice warned the tenants about potential exposure to lead-based paint, particularly in properties built before 1978, and outlined the risks to young children and pregnant women, and the tenants were informed of their right to conduct a comprehensive lead inspection within 10 days of signing the written lease, with an option to terminate it if hazards were identified, the opinion said.

The written lease also contained a housing transaction lead risk statement issued by the city of Philadelphia’s Philadelphia Department of Public Health, stating that most housing built within city limits before 1978 likely contains dangerous lead paint, the opinion said. That statement reinforced the need for an inspection to confirm the absence of lead hazards.

In Cooper, the tenants alleged that, despite these written disclosures, the landlord failed to ensure a lead-safe environment and did not provide updated lead inspection certifications for the lease renewals. Furthermore, the tenants in Cooper argued that the landlord had a legal obligation to conduct lead hazard testing on their own unit and provide clear documentation of compliance.

According to the opinion, in spring 2022, the apartment building in Cooper became subject to the lead disclosure ordinance. Prior to that occurring, the landlord in Cooper hired a certified lead inspector to conduct testing, the opinion said. A “lead-based paint evaluation report” soon thereafter based on a random sampling units in the apartment building in accordance with federal law guidelines, the opinion said.

After the testing resulted in no positive lead-based paint readings, the inspector issued a written report certifying that the apartment building was free of lead hazards which included a disclaimer that untested areas of the apartment building could still contain lead-based paint.

The landlord subsequently submitted a “certification of lead-free status” to the city of Philadelphia’s Department of Public Health and also emailed copies of it to the tenants, the opinion said.

Upon receipt of this lead-free certification, the city of Philadelphia’s Department of Licenses and Inspections in Cooper issued a housing inspection license for the apartment building.

At no time, however, did the landlord in Cooper have the tenants sign this lead-free certificate, acknowledging the receipt of it, the opinion said.

The tenants in Cooper argued that the landlord violated the lead disclosure ordinance by failing to obtain their signed acknowledgment and individually testing their unit.

In summer 2023, the tenants filed a complaint in the form of a class action against the landlord in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

In response, the landlord in Cooper filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an attempt to dismiss the complaint against them by the tenants.

After reviewing that motion and the tenants’ opposition to it, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under the lead disclosure ordinance.

The tenants then appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Superior Court.

In Cooper, the primary issues on appeal were whether the trial court erred in determining that: the landlord’s lead testing methods satisfied the lead disclosure ordinance; and the landlord did not violate the lead disclosure ordinance when they failed to obtain the signatures of the tenants on the lead-free certification to acknowledge they received it.

As for the first issue on appeal, the tenants in Cooper argued that the random sampling of the units in the apartment building for lead-based paint did not satisfy the requirements of the lead disclosure ordnance. In doing so, the tenants in Cooper noted that their unit was not tested.

The landlord in Cooper countered that the lead disclosure ordinance does not mandate testing of every unit and that their certified inspector followed guidelines enacted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which permits such random sampling. The landlord in Cooper also pointed out that the local government granted their housing inspection license based upon the lead-based paint inspection, suggesting compliance with the lead disclosure ordinance.

The Superior Court in Cooper found that the lead disclosure ordinance does reference "sampling" and does not prohibit random testing. It also noted that the EPA’s regulations incorporate HUD guidelines, which explicitly allow for random sampling in multiunit apartment buildings.

Since the lead-based paint inspector followed these federal guidelines by testing 28 out of the 516 units in the apartment building, and because the lead-free certification was accepted by the local government as part of the issuance and subsequent renewals of the housing inspection license for the apartment building, the Superior Court in Cooper concluded that the landlord met the requirements of the lead disclosure ordinance.

The Superior Court in Cooper then reviewed the tenants’ argument that the trial court erred in determining that the landlord did not violate the lead disclosure ordinance when they failed to obtain the signatures of the tenants on the lead-free certification to acknowledge they received it.

In response, the landlord maintained that they provided the lead-free certification to the tenants via electronic mail, which the tenants never specifically denied receiving.

The trial court in Cooper ruled that, while the tenants did not physically sign the lead-free certification, generally holding a landlord responsible for a tenant’s failure to sign a lead-free certificate would create an unreasonable loophole which would allowing a tenant to live rent-free simply by refusing to sign it.

Agreeing with this portion of the trial court’s ruling, the Superior Court in Cooper found that the lead disclosure ordinance’s purpose is to ensure that tenants generally receive disclosure about lead safety, not to provide a mechanism for avoiding rent obligations, and that, because the landlord provided the lead-free certification to both the tenants and the local government, the landlord fulfilled their statutory obligations.

As an aside, the Superior Court in Cooper also pointed out that the tenants did not allege that their unit contained lead hazards or that the housing inspection license was improperly issued or renewed.