Lost in the learned treatises written in the wake of the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc. (July 1, 2008), which properly held that manufacturers of lead pigment are not liable under a nuisance theory for the harm caused by the use of lead paint, is discussion of the significant loss of market capitalization and shareholder value to Sherwin Williams and other manufacturer defendants who have been defending these nuisance claims for the past several years. Apparently, there is no mechanism in Rhode Island for a defendant to file an interlocutory appeal to challenge a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint as a matter of law. Had an interlocutory appeal been available to the lead pigment manufacturers, there is no doubt that the Rhode Island Supreme Court would have ended years ago the State Attorney General's misguided crusade to have the defendants pay billions of dollars to remediate lead contamination in an estimated 240,000 houses and apartments, 12,969 seasonal housing units, 419 child care centers and 339 elementary schools. Notions of basic fairness suggest that a defendant facing a potential liability of this magnitude should be able to obtain appellate review of the plaintiff's right to proceed before having to incur the cost and uncertainty of a court trial. A defendant with less resources than the lead pigment manufacturers might have been forced into a premature settlement with the State or even sought bankruptcy protection prior to waiting out the lengthy appeals process.