Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 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.
On this page, we’ll discuss the AFFF Lawsuit, side effects reported in the AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit, how to file an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit, and much more.
Here is an overview of some of the key points surrounding the lawsuits:
If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.
Contact Tru Law using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.
The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.
The AFFF lawsuit emphasizes significant environmental and health risks tied to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) due to their persistent nature in the environment, often termed “forever chemicals.”
Key points of the AFFF lawsuit involve claims against 3M and other manufacturers for not disclosing the hazardous effects of PFAS, which research has connected to cancer and other severe health issues.
The Department of Defense initiated the use of PFAS-containing foams in the 1970s, primarily to extinguish oil and gas fires at military and airport locations.
ABC news reports revealed that it took decades to recognize the scale of PFAS water contamination, subsequently found widespread in public water systems across the United States.
Communities affected by PFAS number 5,000 across all 50 states, posing health risks to 60 million Americans.
The ongoing legal efforts demand that PFAS manufacturers finance the extensive clean-up operations required.
Proposed remedial measures include installing advanced water filtration systems to eliminate PFAS from contaminated water supplies, an essential yet expensive endeavor to protect public health.
Technological advancements in firefighting have introduced PFAS-free foams, with multiple new products claiming to be fluorine-free.
These products are capable of effectively extinguishing liquid fuel fires, despite requiring greater volumes under ideal conditions due to variations in “foam quality.”
TruLaw is actively seeking new clients for the AFFF lawsuit, focusing on individuals likely exposed to AFFF, including military service members, firefighters, and airport workers.
If you or someone you know has been exposed to AFFF and suffered health consequences contact us for a free consultation.
Alternatively, use the chatbot on our page for an instant AFFF lawsuit evaluation.
The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.
The multidistrict litigation (MDL) now includes over 300 new AFFF Lawsuits, bringing the total to 8,061 pending cases, as noted in the latest reports from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).
Aqueous film-forming foam has been extensively employed in firefighting efforts, notably at both military and civilian airports.
Plaintiffs allege that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through AFFF resulted in severe health consequences, including various forms of cancer.
Firefighters, military personnel, and airport workers are identified as the primary groups adversely affected by exposure to AFFF.
If you or a loved one has been exposed to AFFF, call us today for a free consultation.
Or use the chatbot on this page for an instant case evaluation.
Tyco Fire Products has reached a $750 million settlement in litigation concerning the contamination of public water systems by PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), found in firefighting foams.
PFAS chemicals are notorious for their environmental persistence and their potential to cause severe health issues, including cancer.
This settlement aligns with previous agreements involving companies like 3M and Dupont, highlighting the ongoing legal efforts to address the environmental and health dangers posed by these substances.
The deal, which is awaiting approval from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, is intended to fund improvements to water treatment infrastructure.
This settlement pertains specifically to public water systems affected by PFAS in firefighting foam.
Meanwhile, the broader AFFF lawsuit, addressing personal injuries and cancer claims, continues and remains unresolved.
Our law firm continues to take on new clients for the AFFF lawsuit.
For a free consultation, contact us or use the chatbot on this page to immediately find out if you are eligible to participate in the AFFF lawsuit.
The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation landscape is evolving rapidly.
The latest filings from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) indicating a total of 7,738 lawsuits pending consolidation as of April 1st.
This marks a notable increase from the 7,170 cases reported just a month earlier, on March 1st.
The surge in litigation activity is attributed primarily to increased awareness among affected individuals about their legal options for seeking compensation due to exposure to firefighting foam.
AFFF has been widely utilized across various military branches and by firefighting units for its effectiveness in extinguishing fuel-based fires.
Despite its utility, the foam’s chemical components, particularly Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), have come under scrutiny for potential adverse health effects.
The core of the ongoing lawsuits revolves around allegations that exposure to AFFF, and consequently PFAS, is associated with several serious health conditions.
Individuals with prolonged exposure to AFFF, notably firefighters and military personnel, are reportedly at higher risk and have been instrumental in bringing these issues to light.
For individuals who believe they have suffered health problems as a result of AFFF exposure, legal counsel is advised to explore possible compensation avenues.
Our law firm offers free consultations to evaluate potential cases related to AFFF exposure.
Interested parties are encouraged to reach out through our website’s chatbot for immediate assistance or to arrange a consultation with our specialized AFFF attorneys.
The AFFF Lawsuit continues to progress, and our AFFF Lawyers are accepting clients from all 50 states.
The focus of the AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) legal battle is currently on setting up a procedural structure to examine the scientific claims that the foam’s chemicals are linked to liver and thyroid cancer.
A pivotal event in this phase is the “Science Day,” scheduled to brief the MDL (Multidistrict Litigation) judge on pertinent scientific and medical evidence pivotal to these claims.
The lawsuit’s current stage involves choosing specific cases of liver and thyroid cancer to undergo the bellwether process.
This process mimics trial scenarios to gauge how a jury might react to the presented evidence and testimonials.
A critical part of this stage is the deadline set for both parties to share scientific studies that either support or dispute the claims of cancer linked to AFFF exposure.
These exchanges will culminate in the Science Day presentations.
After the Science Day, a 60-day period is allocated to outline a comprehensive plan for moving forward with the bellwether trials.
This follows a significant settlement where the 3M Company agreed to pay over $10.3 billion to resolve water contamination claims from local water suppliers.
However, the cancer claims related to AFFF exposure are still unresolved.
Individuals who have been exposed to AFFF and have since developed cancer or other health issues might be eligible to participate in the AFFF Lawsuit.
TruLaw offers free consultations to those affected.
Alternatively, our ChatBot is available to immediately assist in determining your eligibility for the AFFF lawsuit.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
As of the latest filings by the JPML, there are currently 7,170 lawsuits regarding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) waiting to be combined.
In the United States, Multidistrict Litigations (MDLs) serve as a mechanism to efficiently manage multiple civil lawsuits that share common issues, facts, or defendants.
These litigations often involve a large number of plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits under similar circumstances, such as cases of product liability, pharmaceuticals, or mass torts, and allow for the consolidation of these cases in a single federal district court for the purpose of pretrial proceedings.
The goal of the AFFF MDLs is to make the litigation process more efficient by centralizing the discovery phase, minimizing repetitive efforts, and ensuring uniform decisions on crucial legal matters.
The recent addition of 176 cases over the past month highlights the ongoing growth of the AFFF MDL initiative.
While a settlement has previously been reached concerning water contamination issues, legal actions regarding individual exposure to AFFF continue.
If you or someone close to you has experienced harm due to AFFF, understanding your legal rights is crucial.
You can use the chatbot on this page to instantly check if you qualify for the AFFF lawsuit.
Connecticut’s Attorney General has initiated two legal actions targeting 28 chemical manufacturers, accusing them of deliberate contamination of the state’s water and natural resources through the use of PFAS chemicals.
These lawsuits are designed to establish the companies’ responsibility for PFAS pollution stemming from two primary sources: the use of Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in firefighting and the incorporation of PFAS in the production of consumer goods such as food packaging, cookware, carpeting, upholstery, clothing, and cosmetics.
PFAS chemicals are notorious for their long-lasting presence in the environment and their association with severe health issues, including various forms of cancer, liver damage, birth defects, elevated cholesterol levels, infertility, and diabetes.
The primary objectives of these legal actions are to secure both injunctive and monetary relief.
This would entail compelling the companies to dispose of their hazardous chemical inventories, mitigate pollution within Connecticut, disclose their research findings, and reimburse the state for expenses related to remediation and testing.
Additionally, the complaints seek penalties for breaches of state laws extending back several decades.
These companies are alleged to have possessed knowledge about the toxicity and enduring nature of PFAS since the 1950s, yet they allegedly failed to safeguard the public interest, resulting in widespread contamination.
Although Connecticut has already taken measures to ban PFAS use in firefighting foam and food packaging, the state is still grappling with the consequences of PFAS pollution.
The lawsuits underscore contamination across various water systems and demand accountability from the chemical manufacturers held responsible for the environmental harm.
In essence, these legal actions symbolize Connecticut’s commitment to addressing the grave health and environmental repercussions associated with PFAS contamination while holding the responsible parties answerable for their actions.
January 1st, 2024:
The MDL judge recently granted a joint motion, allowing an extension for the parties to conduct discussions on an ongoing discovery dispute and a motion to compel.
The extended deadline for these discussions is now January 31st.
Hawaii’s Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, has initiated legal proceedings against 25 manufacturers of firefighting foam products containing harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
In this lawsuit, it is alleged that these companies breached state consumer protection and tort laws by concealing the environmental and human health risks associated with PFAS products, all while profiting from their sale.
The lawsuit aims to hold these defendants accountable for all expenses related to PFAS, encompassing testing, treatment, and monitoring of the state’s natural resources.
It seeks compensation for residents who have suffered losses due to natural resource damage, disposal costs, civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, and other remedies.
This legal action by Hawaii’s AG is the latest in a series of actions taken against AFFF manufacturers, joining the numerous claims filed by individuals who have been exposed to PFAS.
December 1st, 2023:
The AFFF class action MDL is centered on the Telomer water provider cases, a subgroup of water contamination issues.
Recent orders and rulings specifically pertain to this subgroup, not covered by the August water contamination settlement. Regrettably, this focus suggests a potential delay for the remaining individual cancer cases.
Water contamination lawsuits have dominated the AFFF class action docket, leading to some frustration. The delay’s severe consequences are underscored by the submission of three “Suggestion of Death” notices in the MDL, signifying the passing of three plaintiffs awaiting justice. These notices formally inform the court and involved parties about a party’s demise in the lawsuit, initiating the process of substituting the deceased with a representative from their estate, typically the executor or administrator.
Kathy Jennings, the Attorney General of Delaware, has taken legal action against 14 companies, including 3M, for their production of firefighting foam containing “forever chemicals,” allegedly resulting in soil and aquifer contamination within the state.
The lawsuit claims that these companies, involved in manufacturing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), introduced PFAS into the environment, leading to harm and health hazards for residents.
Before filing the lawsuit, the state conducted a comprehensive two-year investigation involving environmental sampling and scrutiny of corporate records.
Building on Delaware’s prior success in securing a $50 million settlement related to PFAS products from companies associated with DuPont, which led to over $1.1 billion in commitments nationwide to settle PFAS-related claims, the current lawsuit aims for monetary damages, compensation for natural resources, and funding for testing and addressing contamination arising from the defendants’ PFAS-containing firefighting products.
The lawsuit specifically outlines alleged efforts by the companies, especially 3M, to hide the dangers of PFAS and their products.
It asserts that 3M was aware of PFAS risks dating back to the 1950s and intentionally misled the public.
3M has stated its intent to defend itself in court and is taking steps to address PFAS concerns by remediation, investment in water treatment, and working in collaboration with affected communities.
Additionally, the case targets the remaining 12 companies, indicating that they likely knew about PFAS risks through industry groups and should have been aware of potential dangers associated with their products.
The lawsuit underscores the responsibility of these companies for the environmental and health impacts caused by their PFAS-containing firefighting foams.
November 1st, 2023:
In the coming weeks, parties involved in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam personal injury cases will choose which cases will be part of the bellwether discovery pool.
They have until November 14, 2023, to share their lists of potential plaintiffs for the bellwether trials. The selected plaintiffs will undergo case-specific fact discovery, leading to the final selection of individuals for the personal injury bellwether trials.
A recent study conducted a nested case-control investigation, examining patients with thyroid cancer by analyzing plasma samples taken before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis.
This study comprised 88 thyroid cancer patients, each carefully matched with 88 healthy controls based on various factors.
The study’s results indicated a 56% higher likelihood of thyroid cancer diagnosis linked to elevated levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS).
This positive association remained statistically significant when focusing on a subgroup of thyroid cancer cases diagnosed one year or more after plasma sample collection.
These findings imply a potential link between PFAS exposure and an increased risk of (papillary) thyroid cancer, a matter of global concern given the widespread prevalence of PFAS exposure.
October 1st, 2023:
A recent study led by Mark Purdue, Ph.D., at the Uniformed Services University explored the link between blood levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), a type of PFAS chemical, and testicular cancer among active-duty Air Force servicemen. The study found that elevated PFOS blood levels were associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer.
This research, published in July 2023, is the first to investigate this relationship using blood measurements within a military population. Further research is needed to explore PFOS exposure and testicular cancer risk in highly exposed populations.
There are now a total of 6,000 separate AFFF Lawsuits consolidated within the multidistrict litigation (MDL).
Municipalities are on the verge of reaching a global settlement valued at more than $10.3 billion for AFFF Lawsuits related to water contamination. This settlement would cover the expenses associated with cleaning up and addressing contamination caused by AFFF products in local water supplies throughout the country.
Municipalities are pleased with this settlement agreement, as it means that the responsibility for cleanup costs falls on the companies responsible for the pollution rather than on the residents affected by it.
Now, the spotlight remains on individuals who have initiated AFFF Lawsuits against the same group of manufacturers, asserting that their health issues are a result of exposure to AFFF fire fighting foam.
August 20th, 2023:
A recent study published in URO Today investigated the link between serum concentrations of PFAS and testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) in U.S. Air Force servicemen. They found that elevated concentrations of certain PFAS were associated with military employment in firefighting and service at bases with high PFAS concentrations in drinking water. Specifically, elevated perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) concentrations in the second sample were positively linked to TGCT.
August 18th, 2023:
Jones v. 3M, et al., has been recently filed directly within the AFFF MDL in South Carolina.
The plaintiff, a 73-year-old former Air Force firefighter from Texas, alleges exposure to fluorochemical products during his service, leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy.
August 1st, 2023:
Judge Gergel approved an unopposed motion to replace a plaintiff in a lawsuit after the original Alabama plaintiff passed away. The deceased plaintiff’s daughter has now taken over as the new plaintiff and filed a wrongful death lawsuit.
In the past month, 493 new cases were consolidated into the AFFF class action MDL, representing the highest monthly volume since the litigation’s inception.
This increase follows the recent global settlement announcement for water contamination cases.
However, the breakdown between water contamination and cancer cases remains unclear.
The MDL now encompasses over 5,000 pending cases.
The initial bellwether test trial in the AFFF class action MDL, City of Stuart v. 3M Co. et al. case, was originally set to begin on June 5, 2023.
The lawsuit pertains to allegations that AFFF contaminated the municipal water system in Stuart, Florida.
However, the trial was postponed due to the PFAS manufacturers reaching a settlement in the case.
The class action MDL received an additional 300 AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits last month, resulting in a total of 4,793 claims now pending in the multidistrict litigation.
The judge sets a deadline for the parties involved in the litigation to submit chosen parts of depositions and a list of evidence they plan to use in the upcoming trial.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) releases research on the presence of PFAS in firefighting equipment textiles, revealing the existence of PFAS in various gear materials.
The findings prompt discussions on the potential transfer of PFAS from equipment to firefighters and their increased cancer risk.
Objections regarding trial exhibits arise, leading to a hearing scheduled to address these evidence-related disputes.
The judge requires lead counsel to personally argue each objection, aiming to narrow down baseless objections.
As the bellwether trial approaches, the defense submits its final List of Trial Exhibits, trial brief, and deposition designations.
The MDL Judge denies the defense motion for summary judgment, ensuring that the jury will decide the bulk of the plaintiffs’ claims in the upcoming trial.
The first test trial in the firefighting foam class action MDL begins with the case of City of Stuart v. 3M Co., et al.
The trial centers around allegations that PFAS from firefighting foam products contaminated Stuart’s water supply.
The defendants argue that there is no evidence linking their products to the contamination.
The trial outcome holds significance for the litigation, potentially resulting in a multi-billion dollar global settlement if the defendants face a substantial loss.
There are still new cases being filed while AFFF lawsuits filed against PFAS-containing firefighting foam increase in number.
While plaintiffs await their trial, it’s important to remember that there have been several PFAS settlements in the past already, which range from a $17.5 million class action settlement to a $4 billion settlement.
A new lawsuit was filed in South Carolina by a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas man named Kent, who was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps.
Kent was diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent prostatectomy, and he claims that the exposure to the fluorochemical products caused him personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The plaintiff’s lawyers filed the complaint in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3, which designates the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case.
A firefighting foam lawsuit was filed by Kent against 3M, and Judge Richard M. Gergel, the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, issued the order.
The plaintiff’s lawsuit asks that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Texas because the events or omissions leading to the claim occurred in Texas.
It was reported that 354 new cases were added to the firefighting foam class action MDL in the last month, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,058.
This marks the second month in a row with higher than average volume of new filings, suggesting that lawyers may be anticipating a settlement and trying to get cases filed before it happens.
Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitation deadline to file a lawsuit bars their claim.
They correctly assume that the statute of limitations for filing an AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) lawsuit is typically 2-3 years from the date of injury in most states.
But most states have a discovery rule that is critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit.
In other words, the time limit for filing a personal injury lawsuit does not start until the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury and its connection to the defendant’s negligence.
The statute of limitations and discovery rule are complicated, with scores of exceptions.
But many victims looking to file an AFFF lawsuit call us believing they likely do not have a claim in 2023 when they absolutely do.
The AFFF MDL Judge is set to make critical rulings on Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of scientific evidence in City of Stuart v. 3M Co., et al. (the first bellwether trial set for June).
The City of Stuart is a water supply contamination case, not a personal injury case involving claims that exposure to AFFF caused cancer.
However, the Daubert rulings on causation evidence in the City of Stuart will still have some applicability to what scientific evidence will be allowed in AFFF cancer cases.
The personal injury cases will participate in a separate bellwether trial program after the water supply trials.
Rulings with respect to the admissibility of scientific evidence in initial drinking water utility lawsuits involving damages caused by firefighting foam containing PFAS will be forthcoming soon.
The first bellwether trial, City of Stuart v. 3M Co., has been scheduled for June 5, and the parties are currently in the final stages of presenting arguments regarding the Daubert standard, which is the criteria that the US District Court for the District of South Carolina should use to evaluate scientific testimony and evidence.
These rulings could impact the admissibility of certain scientific evidence in the cancer lawsuits.
Since January 15th, 317 new firefighting foam AFFF lawsuits were added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases up to 3,704.
The monthly average of new cases for this MDL in 2022 was 175, so this month was almost double that.
We don’t know how many of these new cases are municipal water contamination cases versus personal injury claims.
A recent article authored by eight leading scientist was published in Science Direct in December 2022 and cited over seventy other studies in support of their position.
Due to the persistence of PFASs in the human body and their ability to bioaccumulate, firefighters experience cumulative effects of PFAS-containing AFFF exposure throughout their careers, increasing their risk of developing thyroid, kidney, bladder, testicular, prostate and colon cancers.
The study suggests that PFASs may contribute to firefighter cancers, and further research is needed to evaluate the role of occupational PFAS exposure in causing an elevated cancer risk for firefighters.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing and law firms are accepting clients daily.
Similar to previous lawsuits filed for PFAS contamination, the City of Mansfield, Ohio is filing suit against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard for AFFF contamination of local drinking water.
The contamination stems from use by the Ohio Air National Guard at the local airport.
If you or a loved one were exposed to AFFF and subsequently suffered health problems, you may be eligible to file suit.
Contact us for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for the Firefighting Foam Lawsuit instantly.
Toxic chemicals known as PFAS or forever chemicals are used in firefighting foam by firefighters, military firefighters, airports, industrial workers, and others.
These chemicals have been linked to various types of cancer and other health problems.
The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Lawsuit seeks to compensate those suffering from exposure to AFFF firefighting foam and hold AFFF manufacturers liable for injuries and health problems associated with exposure.
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) was filed for victims exposed to firefighting foam on the job or through consuming contaminated water.
AFFF MDL 2873 is a consolidated lawsuit in the US District Court: District of South Carolina.
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) is a type of firefighting foam used to extinguish liquid fires, such as those started by oil, jet fuel, and industrial chemicals.
The firefighting foam combines with water to form a film layer that suppresses a fire’s oxygen source and prevents it from re-igniting.
AFFF firefighting foam has been used since the 1970s.
It was originally produced by a collaboration between 3M and the US Navy.
It has been banned in some areas and currently is widely reserved for use in extreme situations.
AFFF firefighting foam contains Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).
PFAS are considered “forever chemicals” because they can remain in the environment and human bodies indefinitely.
Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to numerous types of cancer and other health effects:
People are exposed to firefighting foam and PFAS chemicals from firefighting foam in many ways.
Firefighting foam lawsuits have been filed for individuals suffering from occupational exposure and exposure to PFAS chemicals in drinking water near an area where AFFF firefighting foam was used regularly.
Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has been a staple in firefighting, especially for tackling fuel fires.
However, its toxic components have raised serious health concerns, leading to numerous lawsuits.
AFFF is distinguished by its ability to smother fuel fires quickly, acting as a barrier between the fire and oxygen.
Key characteristics of AFFF include, but are not limited to:
Exposure to AFFF can pose considerable health risks due to its composition.
Health hazards from AFFF include:
Research into these toxic firefighting foams has led to efforts to find safer alternatives as an understanding of the long-lasting impact of PFAS on human health continues to evolve.
The environmental impact of AFFF contamination has been a significant concern, as the PFAS chemicals found in these firefighting foam products are known to persist in the environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been actively investigating and addressing the PFAS contamination caused by using AFFF.
The following points highlight the environmental consequences of AFFF use:
The environmental impact of AFFF contamination has led to increased scrutiny from regulatory agencies and the public.
The EPA has established health advisories for PFAS in drinking water and is working on developing enforceable regulations to address the issue.
Environmental protection efforts have also focused on identifying contaminated sites, monitoring PFAS levels, and developing effective remediation strategies.
AFFF contamination can have severe consequences for aquatic ecosystems.
When PFAS chemicals from firefighting foams enter water bodies, they can accumulate in aquatic plants and animals, disrupting the delicate balance of these ecosystems.
Some of the effects on aquatic life include:
Remediating AFFF contamination poses significant challenges due to the persistent nature of PFAS chemicals.
Traditional cleanup methods may not effectively remove these substances from the environment.
Some of the challenges in AFFF remediation include:
The legal actions related to Aqueous film-forming foam AFFF pivot primarily on allegations of negligence and product liability.
These lawsuits contend that manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers and sold a defectively designed product.
In AFFF litigation, plaintiffs argue that manufacturers were negligent by not adequately warning about the potential health risks of exposure to the chemicals in toxic firefighting foam.
Key points include:
Product liability claims suggest there was a failure to warn and the AFFF products were inherently dangerous.
Several critical assertions are made in these cases:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) lawsuits underscore significant health risks for individuals with serious health conditions and the accompanying economic and non-economic damages.
These are primarily driven by prolonged exposure to the toxic substances found in AFFF.
AFFF has been associated with an increased risk of developing various types of cancer due to its content of PFAS, which are long-lasting chemicals with established negative health effects.
Specifically cited in litigations are:
Additionally, thyroid disease has been named in AFFF cancer cases, pointing to a broader spectrum of health issues beyond cancer.
These lawsuits claim that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the health risks and failed to warn users, resulting in personal injury lawsuits.
AFFF litigation seeks to address health-related costs and the broader personal injury lawsuit damages inflicted upon individuals and communities.
The economic and non-economic damages often include:
The overarching claim in these lawsuits is that AFFF manufacturers negligently failed to adequately warn of the dangers, leading to considerable personal and economic harm.
Military personnel and firefighters are most affected by occupational exposure to AFFF.
These individuals have often been exposed to high levels of PFAS chemicals during their service, putting them at a higher risk of developing health issues related to AFFF exposure.
Consider the following points regarding the impact on military personnel and firefighters:
Due to the impact on military personnel and firefighters, many have filed personal injury lawsuits against AFFF manufacturers.
These lawsuits seek compensation for the personal injuries, and health issues suffered due to occupational exposure to AFFF.
Firefighting foam lawyers and AFFF attorneys have been working to represent these individuals and hold manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their products.
One significant challenge military personnel and firefighters face in AFFF lawsuits is proving causation.
Establishing a direct link between AFFF exposure and the development of health issues can be difficult, as many factors can contribute to the development of diseases like cancer.
Some of the challenges in proving causation include:
Given the potential long-term health effects of AFFF exposure, medical monitoring is crucial for military personnel and firefighters who have been exposed to these chemicals.
Regular medical screenings can help detect health issues early and improve treatment outcomes.
The importance of medical monitoring includes:
The litigation surrounding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has identified multiple entities as defendants.
These include major chemical manufacturers and entities frequently using AFFF, such as military installations and airports.
Leading companies linked to the production of AFFF have faced allegations of environmental contamination and health risks due to their products.
Notable defendants include:
The involvement of these companies in litigation underscores the widespread concern over the potential impacts of AFFF on both the environment and public health.
Entities that have utilized AFFF in significant quantities, such as military bases and airports, have also been identified in lawsuits due to the environmental persistence of the foam’s toxic components.
Consider the following examples of how AFFF usage has impacted different sites:
The accountability of such installations is an important aspect of the ongoing legal examinations linked to AFFF.
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been employed to manage the large number of cases filed concerning AFFF, a firefighting foam alleged to cause environmental and health issues.
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina is at the center of these proceedings, streamlining the process and setting the stage for potential resolutions.
Centralization has been the guiding strategy for managing the multitude of AFFF lawsuits.
Here are the key points of consolidation in the federal court:
Bellwether trials play a significant role in shaping the landscape of mass torts like the AFFF MDL.
Important aspects include:
When considering an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit, individuals must understand the eligibility requirements and timelines.
Individuals may be eligible to file an AFFF lawsuit if they have experienced health issues due to exposure to this foam, commonly used for firefighting.
It’s important to meet specific criteria:
The timeframe to file legal action, known as the statute of limitations, varies by state.
Here’s a brief overview:
In AFFF litigation, demonstrating causation is pivotal to a plaintiff’s case.
It involves connecting the dots between exposure to AFFF firefighting foam and subsequent health issues.
Evidence of exposure is the initial step in proving causation.
Plaintiffs must show they were in contact with PFAS-containing firefighting foams.
This may include:
Demonstrating the link between AFFF and health issues involves examining medical records, scientific studies, and expert testimonies.
These elements work together to establish a direct connection between AFFF exposure and conditions like cancer, reinforcing the basis for personal injury claims.
Associating AFFF with specific health issues requires a clear line of evidence:
Linking the use of AFFF to health problems can be challenging in AFFF personal injury cases, but it is essential for establishing a successful claim.
As the dangers of AFFF and PFAS contamination have become more apparent, there has been a growing focus on finding alternative firefighting methods and phasing out the use of AFFF.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory bodies have been working to address the issue and promote the development of safer alternatives.
The following points highlight the future of AFFF and alternative firefighting methods:
The future of firefighting will likely involve a shift away from AFFF and toward safer, more environmentally friendly alternatives.
This transition will require collaboration between manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the firefighting community to ensure that effective and safe firefighting methods are available.
As the AFFF class action MDL progresses and more information about the dangers of PFAS becomes available, the push for alternative firefighting methods is expected to continue gaining momentum.
While developing PFAS-free and fluorine-free firefighting foams is a positive step, transitioning to these alternative foams can present challenges for firefighting agencies and military organizations.
Some of the challenges in transitioning to alternative foams include:
As the transition to alternative firefighting foams continues, research and development are needed to improve the effectiveness and safety of these products.
Collaboration between manufacturers, researchers, and firefighting organizations is essential to drive innovation in this field.
Some areas for continued research and development include:
TruLaw’s network of AFFF lawyers is accepting clients in all 50 states and filing AFFF lawsuits on behalf of those exposed to toxic chemicals in firefighting foam.
If you or a loved one have been exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently suffered health problems or a cancer diagnosis, you may qualify for an AFFF lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.
The settlement amounts in lawsuits involving Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) can vary significantly, often influenced by specific case details such as the extent of exposure and the severity of health impacts.
The settlements might be relatively modest for claimants with minor health issues and limited exposure.
Individuals who are most at risk for exposure to firefighting foam include:
These individuals may have handled AFFF routinely, putting them at a higher risk of exposure to the harmful chemicals contained in the foam.
For veterans who served in the Navy, the possibility of exposure to AFFF, particularly those who worked in firefighting roles, is considerably high.
When filing a lawsuit, such service members must provide detailed documentation of their military service and exposure to AFFF.
To be eligible to file an AFFF lawsuit, claimants must demonstrate that they were exposed to AFFF and have suffered health issues.
The claimant has the burden of proof to provide medical documentation of conditions linked to AFFF, such as cancer or other serious health disorders.
Additionally, the claim must be filed within the legal timeframe stipulated by the statute of limitations, which varies by state.
If you’ve developed cancer after being exposed to AFFF, it’s crucial to seek medical care immediately.
Once your health is managed, contact Tru Law using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation from a lawyer experienced in AFFF lawsuits.
While no settlements have been reached in the AFFF litigation as of yet, lawyers estimate that AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts may fall between $40,000 to $300,000 or more depending on the strength of the case and other individual factors.
However, these figures are merely projections based on knowledge of prior mass tort cases and settlements for cancer diagnosis.
It’s important to note that these amounts can vary greatly and it’s best to consult an experienced lawyer to discuss the specific details of your case.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie 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 reliable legal information with her readers!
You can learn more about the AFFF Lawsuit by visiting any of our pages listed below:
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!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
Camp Lejeune’s water contamination issue spanned several decades starting in the 1950s. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to various serious health issues, including cancer, organ diseases, and death.
Research is increasingly suggesting a link between the use of Tylenol during pregnancy and the development of neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism and ADHD, in infants.
Legal action is being taken against manufacturers of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), a chemical used in fighting fires. The plaintiffs allege that exposure to the foam caused health issues such as cancer, organ damage, and birth and fertility issues.
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?