Because asbestos exposure poses a serious health threat to school children, Congress enacted the Asbestos School Hazard Detection and Control Act in 1980, authorizing federal funds for local programs to locate and remove asbestos-containing materials. No funds have been made available as yet, however, and two-thirds of the affected schools have failed to comply with the law, since they cannot afford to do so. An alternative course for schools is to seek recovery against manufacturers responsible for asbestos installation. Accordingly, this chapter reviews bases of litigation, citing pertinent case law. A recent report by the Department of Justice concludes that schools may take action for equitable restitution against asbestos manufactureres to recover expenses incurred in removing the asbestos threat. But restitution requires schools to fund the removal outright, and then rely on litigation for reimbursement. Thus other bases of litigation are reviewed, including traditional theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty, as well as law of equity and bankruptcy. The latter has been used by manufacturers to evade massive litigation by potential victims. Schools searching for relief from asbestos hazards should therefore consider all theories of liability and all potential defenses in such suits. (TE)