Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Question: What is the AFFF lawsuit?
Answer: The AFFF lawsuit is a massive multidistrict litigation (MDL 2873) consolidating over 9,340 federal cases against manufacturers of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam containing toxic PFAS chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health conditions.
In these product liability lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that companies like 3M, DuPont, Tyco Fire Products, and others knowingly manufactured and sold dangerous firefighting foam while concealing serious health risks from firefighters, military personnel, and communities.
The litigation includes both personal injury claims from individuals diagnosed with cancer after AFFF exposure and water contamination cases from municipalities dealing with PFAS pollution in public water supplies.
On this page, we’ll discuss this question in further depth, major defendants in the AFFF lawsuit, the structure of the AFFF firefighting foam MDL 2873, and much more.
The MDL separates cases into tracks: personal injury claims for cancer victims, water contamination claims for municipalities, and property damage claims for landowners near contaminated sites.
The AFFF firefighting foam litigation has emerged as one of the largest toxic exposure cases in recent legal history, with over 10,000 active personal injury lawsuits currently pending in federal court as of June 2025.
Military firefighters, civilian firefighters, airport workers, and industrial facility employees form the largest groups of plaintiffs, with cases spanning all 50 states due to widespread AFFF use since the 1960s.
If you or someone you love has cancer from firefighting foam exposure, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can help you determine if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit today.
This multidistrict litigation (MDL 2873), consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, represents thousands of individuals who developed serious health conditions after exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contained in aqueous film-forming foam.
With bellwether trials scheduled to begin October 6, 2025, and ongoing settlement negotiations generating momentum, the litigation is approaching a pivotal juncture that could determine compensation outcomes for injured firefighters, military personnel, and affected communities nationwide.
Scientific research has established links between AFFF exposure and multiple serious health conditions, with the strongest epidemiological evidence pointing to increased risks of testicular and kidney cancers among exposed individuals.
Beyond these primary cancer types, studies have documented associations with liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, creating a foundation for legal claims against manufacturers who failed to warn users about these health risks.
The severity and scope of these health impacts have driven thousands of firefighters, military personnel, and affected community members to seek justice through the federal court system.
Cancer types with the strongest scientific evidence linking to PFAS exposure from AFFF include, but are not limited to:
The C8 Science Panel, established to investigate PFAS health effects, concluded there were “probable links” between PFOA exposure and several conditions including testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, diagnosed high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
These findings, supported by epidemiological research involving 16 cohort studies and 10 case-control studies, provide scientific backing for current litigation efforts.
The documented evidence of AFFF manufacturers’ knowledge about these health risks, combined with their failure to provide adequate warnings to users, forms the cornerstone of legal claims seeking compensation for victims who developed life-threatening conditions after AFFF exposure.
The AFFF litigation includes a web of individual personal injury lawsuits, consolidated federal proceedings, and ongoing settlement negotiations that collectively represent one of the most toxic exposure cases in modern legal history.
With over 10,000 active cases pending in MDL-2873 and hundreds of additional filings occurring monthly, the litigation spans all 50 states and involves plaintiffs from diverse backgrounds including career firefighters, military service members, airport personnel, and civilian communities affected by PFAS contamination.
As bellwether trials approach in October 2025 and settlement discussions intensify, the litigation has reached a pivotal juncture that will likely determine compensation outcomes for thousands of individuals who suffered health consequences from AFFF exposure.
Legal experts analyzing similar toxic exposure cases and early bellwether trial preparations project individual AFFF settlement values ranging from $20,000 to $600,000 (or more), with compensation amounts varying based on factors including cancer severity, exposure duration, and individual case circumstances.
Recent developments suggest settlement momentum, with industry observers anticipating settlement offers as early as the first half of 2025 as defendants face mounting pressure from upcoming trial dates and unfavorable discovery rulings.
The precedent set by other settlements in the litigation provides insight into potential compensation levels, including 3M’s $450 million payment to New Jersey and DuPont’s announced $1.2 billion settlement with public water systems for PFAS contamination claims.
Factors that influence AFFF case settlement values include, but are not limited to:
The approaching bellwether trials scheduled to begin October 6, 2025, focusing on kidney cancer cases, are expected to provide guidance for settlement negotiations and establish precedents for case valuation across the litigation.
Legal analysts suggest that strong plaintiff verdicts in these initial trials could increase overall settlement ranges, while defendants may be motivated to reach global settlement agreements to avoid unpredictable jury awards and ongoing litigation costs.
If you or a loved one developed cancer after exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF lawsuit instantly.
The plaintiff population in AFFF litigation represents a group of individuals who experienced occupational or environmental exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam, with career firefighters comprising the largest category due to their routine use of AFFF in training exercises and emergency response situations.
Military personnel, particularly those stationed at bases where AFFF was used for aircraft rescue and firefighting operations, form another plaintiff group, along with airport workers, industrial firefighters, and emergency responders who regularly handled these toxic substances.
Geographic clusters of cases have emerged around military installations, airports, and industrial facilities where AFFF use contaminated local groundwater supplies, affecting entire communities with drinking water exposure that lasted for decades.
Primary categories of individuals eligible to file AFFF personal injury claims include:
To establish a viable claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate regular exposure to PFAS from AFFF firefighting foam through occupational duties, environmental contamination, or residential proximity to contaminated sites, coupled with a qualifying medical diagnosis that scientific evidence links to PFAS exposure.
The litigation particularly focuses on individuals who can provide employment records, training documentation, or other evidence establishing their contact with AFFF products, as well as medical records confirming cancer diagnoses or other serious health conditions recognized in the scientific literature as associated with PFAS exposure.
The AFFF litigation targets over 80 chemical manufacturers and suppliers who produced, marketed, and distributed PFAS-containing firefighting foam for decades while allegedly concealing knowledge about the health risks linked to these “forever chemicals.”
Lead defendants include industry giants 3M and DuPont, who dominated the AFFF market and possess internal documentation revealing corporate awareness of PFAS toxicity dating back to the 1970s, forming the foundation for failure-to-warn and corporate negligence claims.
These manufacturers allegedly knew about the persistence, bioaccumulation, and health dangers of PFAS chemicals but continued marketing AFFF products as safe and effective without providing adequate warnings to users about cancer risks and other health consequences.
Major defendants named in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits include, but are not limited to:
Legal theories against these defendants center on product liability claims alleging design defects, failure to warn about known health risks, and negligent misrepresentation of AFFF safety, with plaintiffs’ attorneys presenting evidence from internal company documents that demonstrate decades of corporate knowledge about PFAS toxicity.
The litigation also includes claims for fraudulent concealment, where manufacturers allegedly suppressed research findings about health dangers while continuing to promote AFFF as environmentally safe and presenting no human health risks, despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary.
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) represents a firefighting technology developed by the U.S. Navy in the mid-1960s through collaboration with 3M Corporation to address the pressing need for more effective suppression of flammable liquids and petroleum-based fires, particularly in military aviation and marine environments.
This foam system gained adoption due to its ability to extinguish fires by creating a thin aqueous film that spreads across fuel surfaces, effectively separating the fuel from oxygen and preventing re-ignition.
Since its introduction, AFFF has become the standard firefighting agent for Class B flammable liquid fires across military installations, airports, industrial facilities, and fire departments worldwide, with its life-saving effectiveness making it an important tool for protecting both firefighters and civilians from dangerous liquid fuel fires.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of human-made chemicals characterized by their molecular structure containing chains of linked carbon and fluorine atoms, creating some of the strongest chemical bonds in organic chemistry with bond strengths reaching 485 kJ/mol.
This extraordinary molecular stability, resulting from the carbon-fluorine bond’s exceptional strength and fluorine’s unique shielding properties, renders these toxic chemicals virtually indestructible under normal environmental conditions, earning them the designation “forever chemicals” in a 2018 Washington Post article.
The amphiphilic nature of PFAS allows them to associate with both water and oils, making them highly effective in firefighting applications but also contributing to their problematic persistence and widespread environmental distribution.
PFAS compounds commonly found in AFFF firefighting foam include:
PFAS chemicals demonstrate remarkable resistance to breakdown through natural processes, high-temperature incineration, or aggressive chemical treatments, resulting in half-lives exceeding eight years in the human body and indefinite persistence in environmental systems.
These “forever chemicals” move readily through soils and groundwater, bioaccumulate in living organisms, and undergo biomagnification through food chains, creating widespread contamination that affects both ecosystems and human populations.
The combination of their extreme persistence, mobility, and documented toxicity has led environmental scientists and regulatory agencies to recognize PFAS as one of the most serious environmental contamination challenges of the 21st century, with their presence now detected in drinking water supplies, agricultural products, and human blood samples worldwide.
Military installations across the United States represent some of the most PFAS-contaminated sites in the nation, with over 700 military bases likely contaminated due to decades of AFFF use in crash crew training exercises, hangar system operations, emergency response drills, and aircraft firefighting procedures beginning in the 1970s.
The Environmental Working Group’s analysis of Department of Defense records confirms that 601 military sites have documented PFAS contamination in drinking water or groundwater systems, with 455 sites showing confirmed contamination levels that pose severe health risks to service members and surrounding communities.
The scope of military PFAS contamination extends far beyond base boundaries, affecting nearby residential areas, agricultural lands, and municipal water supplies through groundwater migration and surface water runoff, creating environmental justice concerns for communities that had no control over the contamination source.
Military installations with documented PFAS contamination include, but are not limited to:
Groundwater contamination levels at military installations often exceed safe drinking water standards by hundreds or thousands of times, with some sites showing PFAS concentrations reaching parts-per-million levels that require immediate remediation and alternative water supplies for affected populations.
The Department of Defense faces mounting pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators, and affected communities to address contamination through comprehensive cleanup efforts, but the extreme persistence of PFAS chemicals and limitations of current remediation technologies present enormous technical and financial challenges.
Legal actions initiated by multiple states and affected communities seek to hold the military accountable for contamination impacts, while service members and veterans exposed to PFAS through drinking water and occupational contact face increased cancer risks and other serious health consequences that may not manifest for years or decades after initial exposure.
If you or a loved one served at a military installation with known PFAS contamination and developed cancer or other serious health conditions, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF lawsuit today.
Despite AFFF’s proven effectiveness in suppressing petroleum-based fires, manufacturers face mounting legal liability for allegedly concealing decades of scientific evidence about PFAS health risks while continuing to market these products as safe for occupational use without adequate warnings about cancer dangers.
Legal theories underlying the litigation focus on manufacturers’ failure to disclose known health risks, defective product design that incorporated inherently dangerous PFAS chemicals, and negligent misrepresentation of safety when internal company documents reveal corporate awareness of toxicity concerns dating back to the 1970s and 1980s.
The timeline of corporate knowledge versus public disclosure forms a foundation for liability claims, with evidence showing that major manufacturers like 3M discovered PFAS contamination in fish near their plants by the 1970s, while DuPont removed female employees from PFAS production areas in the 1980s due to reproductive health concerns, yet continued marketing AFFF without comprehensive health warnings for decades.
No traditional class action lawsuit exists for AFFF personal injury claims, as individual cases involving cancer diagnoses and varied exposure scenarios require personalized legal representation rather than the uniform treatment typically found in class action proceedings.
Instead, AFFF litigation proceeds through multidistrict litigation (MDL-2873) consolidation, which preserves individual case characteristics while streamlining pretrial discovery, motions practice, and other procedural efficiencies under the supervision of a single federal judge in the District of South Carolina.
This MDL structure allows each plaintiff to maintain their individual attorney, pursue case-specific damages based on their unique circumstances, and retain control over settlement decisions while benefiting from shared discovery resources and coordinated legal strategies.
Key reasons why individual AFFF lawsuits are preferred over class action treatment include, but are not limited to:
The MDL process consolidates similar federal lawsuits for efficient pretrial proceedings including discovery, expert witness preparation, and motion practice, while preserving each plaintiff’s right to individual trial if cases do not settle during the coordinated proceedings.
Following completion of pretrial activities, individual cases can be remanded to their original federal districts for trial or resolved through coordinated settlement programs that account for case-specific factors including cancer type, exposure duration, and individual damages.
As of June 2025, MDL-2873 has grown to over 10,391 ongoing AFFF lawsuits, representing a dramatic surge in case filings driven by increased awareness of health risks, impending bellwether trials, and mounting settlement speculation that has prompted eligible individuals to secure legal representation before potential resolution deadlines.
Recent filing trends show consistent monthly additions of 300-500 new cases, with particularly large increases occurring as AFFF lawyers race to establish claims before the first bellwether trial scheduled for October 6, 2025, which will test key evidence and jury reactions that could influence global settlement negotiations.
The litigation has evolved from initial case filings in 2018 to become the 14th largest MDL in United States history, with discovery proceedings, expert witness preparation, and settlement discussions all advancing simultaneously under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel.
Key MDL milestones and upcoming deadlines include, but are not limited to:
The approaching bellwether trials represent a pivotal inflection point in the litigation, as initial jury verdicts will provide important guidance for settlement negotiations and establish important precedents for damage calculations across thousands of pending cases.
Legal observers expect that strong plaintiff verdicts could catalyze comprehensive settlement discussions, while defendants may seek to resolve cases before facing unpredictable jury awards that could exceed current settlement projections and create momentum for additional case filings from previously hesitant potential plaintiffs.
Scientific research has documented a range of health conditions linked to PFAS exposure from AFFF, including multiple cancer types, immune system dysfunction, reproductive disorders, liver disease, thyroid conditions, and cardiovascular effects that can manifest years or decades after initial exposure.
The growing body of epidemiological evidence demonstrates that PFAS chemicals act as endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and immunotoxins that accumulate in human tissue over time, creating long-term health risks for firefighters, military personnel, and communities exposed through contaminated drinking water or occupational contact.
Medical literature now recognizes PFAS exposure as a public health concern requiring ongoing medical monitoring for exposed individuals, with health effects potentially emerging long after initial contact due to the persistent nature of these “forever chemicals” and their tendency to bioaccumulate in organs throughout the body.
Epidemiological studies have established the strongest scientific evidence linking AFFF exposure to kidney cancer and testicular cancer, with multiple research investigations demonstrating associations between PFAS blood levels and increased incidence of these malignancies among exposed populations.
The C8 Science Panel’s comprehensive analysis (along with subsequent cohort studies and case-control investigations) has documented elevated cancer risks that form the scientific foundation for current litigation.
Kidney and testicular cancers show the most consistent and robust associations, while liver and thyroid cancer also demonstrate significant correlations across different study populations and geographic regions.
Research indicates that PFAS chemicals may act through multiple carcinogenic mechanisms including DNA damage, hormonal disruption, immune system suppression, and cellular inflammatory responses that can promote tumor development over extended latency periods.
Cancer diagnoses that qualify for AFFF litigation based on scientific evidence include, but are not limited to:
Cancer latency periods for PFAS-related malignancies can range from several years to multiple decades after initial exposure, emphasizing the importance of long-term medical surveillance for individuals with documented AFFF contact history.
The persistent nature of PFAS chemicals means that even brief occupational exposure can result in sustained body burdens that maintain carcinogenic potential over extended periods, requiring ongoing monitoring and early detection strategies to identify cancers at treatable stages and survival outcomes for affected individuals.
Beyond cancer risks, PFAS exposure from AFFF has been linked to numerous non-malignant health conditions affecting multiple organ systems, including thyroid dysfunction, liver disease, immune system suppression, reproductive disorders, and cardiovascular complications that can impact quality of life and require ongoing medical management.
These conditions often develop gradually over years following exposure and may be initially misdiagnosed as other medical problems, making it important for exposed individuals to inform healthcare providers about their AFFF contact history to ensure appropriate testing and treatment.
The multi-system effects of PFAS chemicals reflect their ability to disrupt normal physiological processes through endocrine interference, inflammatory responses, and cellular damage that can affect virtually every organ system in the human body.
Non-cancer health conditions recognized in AFFF litigation include, but are not limited to:
PFAS chemicals exert their toxic effects through multiple mechanisms including disruption of hormone signaling pathways, interference with cellular membrane function, promotion of inflammatory responses, and alteration of gene expression patterns that can affect normal development and organ function.
The persistence of these chemicals in human tissue means that health effects can continue to develop long after exposure cessation, requiring lifelong medical monitoring and management strategies to address both current symptoms and prevent future complications in exposed individuals and their families.
Comprehensive epidemiological research conducted by leading academic institutions, government agencies, and international research organizations has established a robust scientific foundation documenting the health risks associated with PFAS exposure from AFFF, with studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants providing compelling evidence of increased disease risk among exposed populations.
Major research initiatives including the C8 Health Project, military cohort studies, occupational health investigations, and community exposure assessments have consistently demonstrated associations between PFAS blood levels and adverse health effects across diverse geographic regions and exposure scenarios.
Ongoing research efforts continue to expand PFAS toxicity mechanisms, identify additional health conditions, and develop biomarkers for early detection of PFAS-related diseases in exposed individuals.
Major research institutions and studies documenting AFFF health effects include, but are not limited to:
Current research priorities focus on dose-response relationships, identifying sensitive populations, developing treatment strategies for PFAS-related diseases, and investigating the health effects of newer PFAS chemicals that have replaced legacy compounds in recent AFFF formulations.
Scientists are also working to establish biomarkers for early disease detection, evaluate the effectiveness of medical interventions for exposed individuals, and develop remediation strategies to reduce ongoing exposure risks in contaminated communities and occupational settings.
AFFF exposure occurs through multiple routes including occupational inhalation during firefighting activities, dermal absorption through skin contact with contaminated foam or equipment, and accidental ingestion during emergency response situations or through contaminated food and beverages in workplace settings.
Firefighters and emergency responders face the highest exposure risks due to direct contact with AFFF during training exercises, emergency responses, and equipment maintenance activities that can result in PFAS absorption through all exposure pathways simultaneously.
The effectiveness of personal protective equipment in preventing PFAS exposure remains limited, as these harmful chemicals can penetrate many common barrier materials and accumulate on equipment surfaces, creating ongoing exposure risks even after initial contact events.
Primary occupational and environmental exposure scenarios include, but are not limited to:
Environmental exposure pathways extend far beyond immediate occupational contact, affecting entire communities through groundwater contamination, surface water pollution, and food chain bioaccumulation that can result in chronic low-level exposure over extended periods.
Military installations, airports, and industrial facilities using AFFF have created contamination plumes affecting nearby residential areas, agricultural lands, and municipal water supplies, leading to community-wide exposure through drinking water consumption and dietary sources that can persist for decades due to the environmental persistence of PFAS chemicals.
If you or a loved one experienced AFFF exposure through any of these pathways and developed qualifying health conditions, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF lawsuit today.
Eligibility for AFFF litigation requires demonstrating both documented exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam and a qualifying medical diagnosis that scientific evidence links to PFAS toxicity, with successful claims typically requiring documentation including employment records, medical files, and evidence establishing the connection between exposure and health impacts.
The most viable cases involve individuals with occupational or environmental exposure histories who developed cancer types associated with PFAS in epidemiological studies, particularly kidney cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, or other malignancies recognized in the scientific literature as related to “forever chemical” exposure.
Given the detailed causation requirements and technical evidence needed to establish liability, consulting with experienced AFFF attorneys is important for properly evaluating case merits, gathering necessary documentation, and addressing the legal and scientific issues involved in these toxic exposure claims.
Successful AFFF litigation requires comprehensive documentation establishing both exposure history and medical causation.
Employment records, training logs, and military service documentation serve as evidence to prove contact with PFAS-containing firefighting foam throughout an individual’s career or service period.
Medical records must clearly document the timeline of symptom development, diagnostic procedures, treatment history, and current health status to establish the connection between AFFF exposure and subsequent illness, while expert medical testimony typically plays an important role in demonstrating how PFAS chemicals caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s cancer or other serious health conditions.
The strength of causation evidence often determines case value and settlement potential, making thorough documentation and expert witness preparation important components of successful AFFF legal claims.
Documentation for AFFF lawsuit claims includes, but is not limited to:
Witness statements from colleagues, supervisors, and fellow service members can provide important corroborating evidence about exposure circumstances, safety protocols, and the frequency of AFFF use in specific workplace or military settings.
Expert testimony from occupational health specialists, toxicologists, and oncologists typically plays a decisive role in establishing the scientific connection between PFAS exposure and cancer development, requiring careful coordination between legal teams and qualified medical experts who can explain causation issues to judges and juries in terms that support liability findings and appropriate damage awards.
Economic damages in firefighting foam cancer lawsuit cases include both past and future medical expenses including cancer treatment costs, surgical procedures, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, ongoing medical monitoring, and rehabilitation services, as well as lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and the economic impact of career limitations caused by cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Future medical costs often represent the largest component of damage calculations, particularly for younger plaintiffs who may require decades of ongoing medical care, monitoring for cancer recurrence, and treatment for secondary health conditions related to both the original cancer and the side effects of cancer treatments.
The calculation process requires detailed economic analysis involving medical experts, vocational rehabilitation specialists, and economists who can project lifetime costs and earning losses based on individual circumstances, cancer prognosis, and treatment requirements.
Damage categories recognized in AFFF cancer litigation include, but are not limited to:
Non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of life enjoyment often constitute substantial portions of AFFF settlements and verdicts, particularly in cases involving young plaintiffs with aggressive cancers or extensive treatment requirements that impact their ability to enjoy normal life activities.
The calculation of these damages considers factors including the severity of cancer diagnosis, the invasiveness and duration of treatment, the prognosis for recovery, and the impact on family relationships, career aspirations, and personal goals, with experienced legal teams working to present compelling evidence about how AFFF-related cancer has affected every aspect of the plaintiff’s life and future prospects.
AFFF litigation involves detailed scientific, medical, and legal issues requiring specialized expertise in toxic tort law, environmental contamination, occupational health regulations, and mass tort litigation procedures that distinguish these cases from typical personal injury claims.
Experienced firefighting foam cancer lawyers possess the resources to conduct comprehensive case investigations, retain qualified expert witnesses, handle sophisticated discovery processes, and coordinate with medical specialists who recognize the unique challenges of proving causation in PFAS exposure cases involving long latency periods and multiple potential contributing factors.
The technical sophistication of demonstrating how “forever chemicals” cause cancer requires legal teams with extensive experience in environmental litigation, access to scientific databases, and established relationships with leading experts in PFAS toxicology and occupational medicine.
Attorney qualifications for AFFF litigation include, but are not limited to:
Experienced counsel can create value through proper case development, strategic expert witness selection, comprehensive discovery management, and skilled negotiation with defendants who often possess substantial resources and legal expertise to minimize liability exposure.
The investment required for thorough case preparation in AFFF litigation typically exceeds the resources available to individual plaintiffs, making the choice of legal representation a critical factor in achieving successful outcomes and obtaining fair compensation for the devastating health impacts caused by PFAS exposure from firefighting foam.
Our AFFF firefighting foam attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
With extensive experience in chemical-exposure litigation, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with industry leaders to prove how toxic PFAS chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam—and the resulting contamination of water supplies—caused you harm.
TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, property damage, lost income, and ongoing health monitoring resulting from your AFFF exposure.
We recognize the health and environmental impacts of AFFF firefighting foam on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.
At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.We operate on a contingency-fee basis—you pay legal fees only after you recover compensation.
If you or a loved one developed cancer or another serious illness after long-term exposure to AFFF firefighting foam (or PFAS-contaminated water linked to AFFF use), you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit today.
AFFF lawsuits are being filed by firefighters, military veterans, airport personnel, and others nationwide after years of repeated exposure to toxic firefighting foam (AFFF) that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one developed cancer or another serious illness after long-term exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and learn whether you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit today.
Traditional aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose health risks due to their toxic “forever chemical” composition that persists in human tissue and the environment indefinitely.
These PFAS-containing foams, widely used from the 1970s through the early 2000s and still present in some facilities today, have been scientifically linked to multiple cancer types and serious health conditions.
Newer fluorine-free foam alternatives have been developed to replace AFFF, though their long-term safety profiles are still being evaluated through ongoing research.
Yes, traditional AFFF firefighting foam contains highly toxic PFAS chemicals that accumulate in human tissue over time and have been scientifically linked to cancer, liver disease, thyroid dysfunction, immune system suppression, and numerous other serious health conditions.
These “forever chemicals” cannot be broken down by natural processes and remain in the human body for years, creating long-term health risks even after exposure ends.
The persistence and bioaccumulation of PFAS chemicals make AFFF exposure particularly dangerous for firefighters, military personnel, and communities with contaminated drinking water supplies.
High-risk groups include career and volunteer firefighters who used AFFF during training and emergency response, military personnel stationed at bases where AFFF was extensively used for aircraft firefighting, airport rescue and firefighting workers, industrial firefighters at refineries and chemical plants, and emergency responders who regularly encountered these foam products.
Additionally, communities near military installations, airports, and industrial facilities face exposure risks through contaminated drinking water, while family members of occupationally exposed individuals may face secondary exposure through contaminated clothing and equipment.
Statute of limitations periods for AFFF claims vary by state and typically begin when the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, rather than the initial exposure date, due to the long latency periods associated with PFAS-related cancers.
Most states allow between two to six years from the discovery date to file legal action, though some jurisdictions have special provisions for toxic exposure cases that may extend these deadlines.
Given these time limitations and the risk of losing the right to pursue compensation, immediate legal consultation is recommended for anyone who believes they has an AFFF-related claim.
Experienced AFFF attorneys provide comprehensive case evaluation to determine eligibility and potential compensation, coordinate extensive evidence gathering including employment records and medical documentation, retain qualified medical and scientific expert witnesses to establish causation, and handle the detailed MDL procedures that govern most AFFF litigation.
Legal teams also handle all communications with defendants and their insurers, manage the technical aspects of proving PFAS exposure and health impacts, and work to secure compensation through skilled settlement negotiations or trial advocacy.
Specialized counsel ensures that clients know their rights while handling all legal aspects to achieve the best possible outcomes.
AFFF attorneys typically work on contingency fee arrangements, meaning clients pay no upfront costs or attorney fees unless their case results in a successful settlement or verdict, at which point the legal team receives a predetermined percentage of the recovery.
This arrangement makes legal representation accessible to injured individuals regardless of their financial situation while aligning attorney interests with client success.
Case expenses such as expert witness fees, medical record retrieval, and court costs are usually advanced by the law firm and recovered from any eventual settlement or award.
Yes, eligible family members can pursue wrongful death claims when a loved one dies from AFFF-related cancer or other qualifying health conditions, with compensation available for funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and other damages recognized under state wrongful death statutes.
Spouses, children, parents, and sometimes other dependents may be entitled to file these claims depending on state law and family circumstances.
These cases require establishing the same exposure and causation evidence as personal injury claims, along with documentation of the economic and emotional losses suffered by surviving family members.
The AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL-2873) consolidates thousands of individual lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for coordinated pretrial proceedings including discovery, motion practice, and bellwether trial preparation while preserving each plaintiff’s individual case rights.
This process allows for efficient sharing of evidence, expert witness preparation, and legal strategy development while maintaining individual attorney representation and settlement decision-making authority for each plaintiff.
Following pretrial proceedings, cases can be resolved through coordinated settlement programs or remanded to original districts for individual trials if settlement is not achieved.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s current health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water are set at 0.004 parts per trillion, reflecting the extreme toxicity of these chemicals, while state regulations and scientific studies suggest that even trace amounts of PFAS may increase cancer risks over time.
Recent epidemiological research indicates that chronic exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water at levels previously considered safe can lead to bioaccumulation sufficient to cause health effects, particularly for sensitive populations including children and pregnant women.
The persistence of PFAS chemicals means that even low-level exposure through drinking water can result in body burdens that exceed safe thresholds over years or decades of consumption.
Military firefighters, aviation firefighters at commercial airports, and those stationed at military installations face elevated exposure risks due to frequent training exercises and emergency responses involving jet fuel fires that require AFFF suppression.
Industrial firefighters at refineries, chemical plants, and petroleum facilities also encounter high exposure levels, while structural firefighters who respond to vehicle fires and hazardous material incidents may use AFFF for specialized fire suppression systems applications.
The highest risks typically occur during training scenarios where firefighters repeatedly practice with AFFF in controlled burn exercises, creating cumulative exposure over years of service.
Naval personnel face unique AFFF exposure scenarios including shipboard firefighting operations, aircraft carrier flight deck emergencies, submarine fire suppression activities, and naval aviation facility responses that create distinct exposure patterns compared to other military branches.
Ship-based exposure involves confined spaces and recirculation systems that can concentrate PFAS chemicals, while flight deck operations expose sailors to AFFF mist and runoff during aircraft firefighting procedures.
Additionally, naval base firefighters conducting training exercises and equipment testing face repeated occupational exposure similar to other military firefighting personnel, creating multiple pathways for PFAS contamination among Navy service members.
Qualifying cancers for AFFF litigation typically include those with established scientific links to PFAS exposure, particularly kidney cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and certain blood cancers, though eligibility depends on individual exposure history and medical documentation.
The strength of scientific evidence varies by cancer type, with kidney and testicular cancers showing the most robust epidemiological support, while emerging research continues to identify additional cancer types potentially linked to PFAS exposure.
Consultation with experienced AFFF attorneys who can review medical records, exposure history, and current scientific literature is important for determining whether a specific cancer diagnosis qualifies for litigation.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?