WASHINGTON, DC 20549


                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

      Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) September 18, 2002


                               Masco Corporation
               (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

          Delaware                       1-5794                   38-1794485
          --------                       ------                   ----------
(State or Other Jurisdiction     (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
     of Incorporation)                                       Identification No.)

        21001 Van Born Road, Taylor, Michigan                48180
        -------------------------------------                -----
       (Address of Principal Executive Offices)            (Zip Code)

                                 (313) 274-7400
               Registrant's telephone number, including area code

Item 5.  Other Events

     The Company is filing this Current Report on Form 8-K for the purpose of
reporting a new development concerning the previously disclosed civil suit
filed in May 1998 in the Grays Harbor County, Washington State Superior trial
court against the Company's Behr Process Corporation subsidiary.

     This Washington case involves four exterior wood coating products,
representing a relatively small part of Behr's total sales, brought on behalf
of purchasers of these products in nineteen counties in western Washington
State, an area with a particularly humid climate. The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that after applying these products to their homes and ancillary
structures such as fences and decks, the wood surfaces suffered excessive
mildew. Behr denies the allegations. In January, 1999 the trial court certified
the case as a class action, including all purchasers of the products who reside
in the nineteen counties.

     As previously disclosed, in May, 2000, the trial court entered a default
against Behr as a discovery sanction. The default prevented Behr from
presenting evidence to challenge damages. Thereafter, the jury returned a
verdict awarding damages to the named plaintiffs. The damages awarded in
respect of the homes of the eight homeowner plaintiff claims (excluding one
award to the owners of a vacation resort) ranged individually from $14,500 to
$38,000. The awards were calculated using a formula based on the product used,
the type and square footage of wood surface the product was applied to and
certain other allowances. The formula would result in lesser awards for product
applied to ancillary structures such as fences and decks. Under the verdict,
the same formula will be used for calculating awards on claims that may be
submitted by the subject purchasers of these products. In July 2000, the court
awarded additional damages of $10,000 per claim to the eight homeowner claims,
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. This increased the total damages
awarded on the homeowner claims to approximately $263,000. The court denied the
plaintiffs' request for an award of additional damages under the Consumer
Protection Act on claims that may be submitted by unnamed class members on the
basis that it lacked statutory authority to award such additional damages. In
addition, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees.

     Behr appealed the trial court judgment to the Court of Appeals of
Washington. On September 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion,
ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on substantially all issues, including the
authority of the trial court to award additional damages under the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (up to a maximum of $10,000 to each class member). Behr
intends to petition the Washington State Supreme Court for discretionary review
of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Although Behr believes that rulings by
the trial court constitute reversible error and that there are valid defenses
to the lawsuit, there can be no assurance that the Supreme Court will accept
the appeal or that it will reverse the judgment of the trial court.

     After publication of the trial court's 1999 order certifying the case as a
class action, plaintiffs' counsel stated that they have been contacted by more
than 2000 persons regarding the case. It is uncertain whether the persons who
have already contacted plaintiffs' counsel have claims they intend

to submit in the class action, whether they will successfully complete the
claims documentation and process, or the extent to which any such claims relate
to homes or ancillary structures. Unless the decision of the Washington trial
court is reversed on appeal, the claim notification process will begin.
Following such notice, persons certifying that they purchased and applied the
relevant products on property that they own and that they experienced mildew on
the property will be entitled to damages according to the formula established
by the trial court as discussed above. The Company anticipates that the number
of claims may then increase significantly over the number of persons who have
already contacted plaintiffs' counsel.

     In light of the circumstances, unless the decision of the Washington trial
court is reversed on appeal, the Company has determined that it is probable
that a loss has been incurred with respect to this class action and that the
loss incurred may be material to its financial position and results of
operations. Although Behr believes that the subject products have been
purchased by thousands of consumers in western Washington, consumer complaints
in the past have been relatively small compared to the total volume of products
sold. Virtually all of the products were sold through independent hardware,
building products and home improvement retailers. Behr generally does not know
the identity of its end customers or the mix of structures on which customers
apply Behr's products. As a result, at this time Behr is not in a position to
estimate reliably the number of class members, the number of claims that may be
filed, the type of structure or the square footage on which the product was
applied or the awards that class members may seek. Because the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the potential loss, no
liability, other than the original judgment of the trial court for the named
plaintiffs, has been accrued in its financial statements.

     Behr and the Company continue to defend the other similar class actions
previously reported. Unless the decision of the Washington trial court is
reversed on appeal, the developments described above may also adversely affect
certain aspects of the Company's and Behr's defenses in such other actions. In
view of the fact that the Washington trial court judgment was the result of a
default entered as a discovery sanction, the Company and Behr continue to
believe that they have valid defenses in these other actions.

     Two of Behr's liability insurers continue to participate in Behr's defense
of the class actions subject to a reservation of rights. One insurer has filed
a declaratory judgment action in the Orange County, California Superior Court
seeking a declaration that the claims asserted in the class action complaints
are not covered by Behr's insurance policies. The other insurer was named as a
defendant in the suit and has filed cross-claims against Behr seeking a similar


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                           MASCO CORPORATION

                                           By: /s/ Timothy Wadhams
                                               Name:  Timothy Wadhams
                                               Title: Vice President and Chief
                                                        Financial Officer

September 18, 2002