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.
AFFF lawsuit claims allege manufacturers knowingly produced toxic firefighting foam containing PFAS — causing cancer and other health issues for those exposed to the foam.
Over 10,000 AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits have been filed and are now consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina.
No trials or global settlements have occurred yet for personal injury claims.
The first bellwether trials for individual injury cases are scheduled for 2025.
On this page, we’ll discuss an overview of the AFFF Lawsuit, side effects and health conditions alleged in the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, how to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit claim, and much more.
Here is an overview of some of the key points surrounding the AFFF lawsuits:
If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
Indiana’s PFAS firefighting foam collection and disposal program, aimed at reducing firefighters’ exposure to these hazardous chemicals, is set to end on December 30.
This initiative, managed by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS) with the Department of Environmental Management, reflects broader health efforts to limit exposure to “forever chemicals.”
Linked to immune disorders, developmental issues in children, and cancer — the leading cause of death among firefighters — PFAS-based foams are commonly used to fight Class B fires involving flammable liquids like gasoline.
The IDHS is urging Indiana fire departments to join the program before its December 1 deadline.
Financial limitations after the program ends may hinder further disposal efforts. PFAS chemicals, meanwhile, persist as a national concern, found in consumer products like non-stick cookware and fast-food wrappers.
Despite some recent regulatory actions from the EPA, thousands of PFAS compounds remain unregulated, posing an ongoing public health challenge.
If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
The AFFF Firefighting Foam Litigation involves claims that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), widely used by firefighters and military personnel, contains harmful PFAS “forever chemicals” linked to cancer and severe health conditions.
Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers failed to adequately warn users of these risks, resulting in significant health impacts.
In October, the total number of cases reached 9,896; however, by November, the case count saw a significant drop to 7,150—a reduction of 2,746 cases.
This decline is mainly attributed to consolidations or dismissals related to injuries that did not align with the bellwether injury list.
Most AFFF cases are centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South Carolina (Charleston Division), where the MDL court has identified cases for the initial personal injury bellwether trial pool and outlined a scheduling order.
This timeline sets deadlines for depositions, expert discovery, dispositive motions, expert challenges, and pretrial proceedings.
The first trial is slated for October 6, 2025, featuring a plaintiff with kidney or testicular cancer.
Plaintiffs with other types of injuries are following a secondary schedule, with trial dates to be determined.
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 Fire Fighting Foam Lawsuit.
Carrier Global Corp has reached three settlement agreements totaling $615 million to resolve lawsuits concerning Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF).
These settlements are intended to address claims within the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, involving plaintiffs affected by contamination and health risks tied to the use of firefighting foam.
The agreement also resolves claims against Kidde-Fenwal (KFI), a former subsidiary of Carrier, which manufactured AFFF and is now in bankruptcy proceedings.
KFI has faced extensive litigation related to health conditions such as cancer and water contamination linked to chemicals in AFFF, particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been associated with serious illnesses like kidney, bladder, and testicular cancer.
The $615 million settlement forms part of a wider effort by companies involved in AFFF litigation, such as 3M and DuPont, to address mounting legal and financial pressures from other contamination-related claims.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an AFFF Lawyer from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation to find out if you qualify for an AFFF Lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
The AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit focuses on the harmful effects of exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly found in military-grade firefighting foam.
These “forever chemicals” are linked to numerous serious health issues due to their persistence in the environment and human body.
As of September 1st, 9,576 cases were filed in the AFFF MDL.
By October, that number rose to 9,896.
This surge highlights growing awareness of the dangers posed by PFAS exposure from AFFF, as more studies continue to link these chemicals to various cancers and debilitating illnesses.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is conducting an investigation to determine if kidney cancer can be linked to PFAS exposure.
The outcome of this investigation could designate kidney cancer as a presumptive service-connected condition, allowing veterans faster access to healthcare and benefits.
This study reflects increasing concerns about the association between PFAS exposure and cancer, particularly among veterans exposed to these chemicals during military service.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an AFFF Lawyer from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation to find out if you qualify for an AFFF Lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
In recent developments in the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation, a group of firefighters has filed a lawsuit against major chemical companies, including 3M.
The lawsuit alleges severe health impacts due to long-term exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals in AFFF.
The 12 plaintiffs claim that their exposure to AFFF has led to serious health conditions, including prostate cancer, leukemia, and kidney cancer.
Despite decades of research highlighting the dangers of PFAS, the companies allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings or implement safety measures, continuing to distribute the foam without proper consent.
The plaintiffs seek medical monitoring, injunctive relief, and accountability for the harm caused by AFFF.
Meanwhile, in Brunswick, Maine, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) continues comprehensive testing following a major AFFF spill in August 2024.
Soil and water sampling has revealed PFAS contamination in local watersheds and marine environments, with elevated PFAS levels found in some soil samples.
While public water supplies remain safe, and no direct contamination has been found, the DEP has advised the public to avoid recreational activities in the affected areas.
Testing will continue, and further updates are expected as the cleanup progresses.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation today to find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to check your eligibility for legal action instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
The ongoing AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) firefighting lawsuits have emerged as a major legal and environmental issue due to the presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), often called “forever chemicals.”
These chemicals, found in products like firefighting foam, have been linked to serious health risks, including cancer, and have contaminated water supplies in various locations.
Minnesota’s Regulatory Actions: For the first time, Minnesota is requiring 3M to limit PFAS discharge into the Mississippi River from its Cottage Grove plant.
This follows long-standing concerns about contamination of fish and water in the area.
The plant, which previously manufactured Scotchgard and now produces specialty tapes and chemicals, has a history of PFAS-related pollution issues, leading to drinking water contamination.
Despite 3M’s plans to end PFAS production by 2025 and build a $300 million water treatment system, the company is challenging the new permit requirements, claiming they are legally unjustified.
Contamination in Grand Prairie, Texas: A firefighting foam spilling Grand Prairie led to potential water contamination, affecting around 60,000 residents.
Although the foam used was said not to contain PFAS, residents were still advised to avoid using tap water due to a backflow issue, which temporarily forced businesses and schools to close.
Cape Fear River Study: A study by Cape Fear River Watch revealed fish tissue samples from the Northeast Cape Fear River contained PFOS levels 20 times higher than state standards.
PFOS, part of the PFAS family, has been linked to cancer and developmental defects.
Nearby Lear’s Textile Company, which uses PFAS in manufacturing, is now working with state regulators to phase out the chemicals.
If you or a loved one has developed cancer or other serious health conditions after exposure to PFAS-contaminated water, you may be eligible to file a PFAS water contamination lawsuit.
Contact Tru Law using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation to determine if you qualify to join others filing in the PFAS water contamination lawsuit.
The AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit targets manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a product widely used by firefighters.
Recently, over 1,400 gallons of firefighting foam containing toxic PFAS, also called forever chemicals, spilled accidentally at an airplane hangar in Maine.
The spill occurred due to the unexpected discharge of an outdated fire suppression system at Hangar 4, located at Brunswick Executive Airport, flooding the hangar and surrounding areas with foam.
PFAS chemicals in the foam are linked to severe health risks.
The AFFF Lawsuit aims to secure compensation for individuals affected by exposure to these dangerous substances.
In August, there were 9,525 filings within the federal AFFF MDL, increasing to 9,576 by September 1st.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
Over 1,600 gallons of firefighting foam containing harmful PFAS chemicals were accidentally discharged at the former Brunswick Naval Air Base, now operating as Brunswick Executive AIrport, due to a fire suppression system malfunction.
The foam, designed to extinguish jet fuel fires, entered the sewer and stormwater systems, leading to significant environmental contamination.
Nearby nature preserves were impacted, with foam reaching depths of four to eight feet in some ponds, according to Steve Walker from the Brunswick-Topsham Land Trust.
Cleanup efforts by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection are ongoing, but concerns remain about the long-term environmental impact, as these chemicals are known for their persistence in nature and links to serious health risks.
PFAS chemicals in AFFF are central to ongoing lawsuits, where plaintiffs seek compensation for health and environmental damages caused by these toxic substances.
The Brunswick spill could potentially contribute to the growing litigation surrounding PFAS contamination and its harmful effects on the environment and the people within it.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey recently signed a law mandating the phase-out of PFAS chemicals in firefighters’ protective gear, marking a significant development in the ongoing Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) litigation.
The new law, effective January 2025, requires manufacturers and sellers to disclose the presence of PFAS in firefighting equipment and justify its inclusion.
By 2027, the sale of protective gear containing intentionally-added PFAS will be prohibited.
PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are linked to serious health conditions, including various cancers.
Firefighters, who face a higher risk of developing cancer compared to the general population, have been particularly affected due to prolonged exposure to these chemicals in their gear and the use of AFFF in firefighting operations.
This legislation is likely to impact the ongoing AFFF lawsuits, which allege that PFAS exposure from firefighting foam and gear has caused significant health problems.
With Massachusetts enacting one of the nation’s strongest PFAS regulations, this law could set a precedent for similar actions in other states, potentially influencing the outcomes of AFFF-related litigation.
Firefighter unions and advocacy groups, such as the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), have long campaigned against the use of PFAS in firefighting equipment due to its role in causing occupational cancers.
This new law is a direct response to those concerns and reflects a growing recognition of the dangers.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
States across the nation are intensifying efforts to address the dangers of PFAS chemicals in firefighting gear and foams.
PFAS are synthetic chemicals known for their resistance to breaking down in the environment and are linked to serious health risks, including liver and kidney damage, reproductive harm, and certain cancers.
The Massachusetts State Senate has passed a bill banning PFAS in firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), set to take effect on January 1, 2027.
This legislation aims to remove PFAS from the protective gear worn by firefighters, addressing growing concerns about the health risks associated with prolonged exposure to these chemicals.
Firefighter unions are pushing for the state’s House of Representatives to expedite the bill’s passage and present it to Governor Healey before the legislative session ends.
In Alaska, a new law requires fire departments to stop using PFAS-containing firefighting foams by January 1, 2025.
The law, which took effect without the governor’s signature, mandates a shift to PFAS-free alternatives and creates a system for rural villages to dispose of existing PFAS foams, with the state providing financial reimbursement.
This legislation reflects years of advocacy by environmental and health organizations and marks a significant step in addressing PFAS contamination, especially in areas near airports and military bases where these foams have been heavily used.
Additionally, two more fire departments in Connecticut, Stamford and Old Mystic, have joined a federal lawsuit against 3M and DuPont.
The lawsuit claims that the companies’ turnout gear used by firefighters contains PFAS chemicals that pose cancer risks.
This legal action, which includes several other Connecticut departments and firefighter unions, may be the first of its kind in the nation, highlighting the growing legal challenges faced by manufacturers of PFAS-containing products.
Regarding the AFFF Firefighting Foam MDL, the litigation saw an increase of more than 300 cases in the past month.
As of August 1, 9,525 pending AFFF lawsuits were reported by the JPML.
The transition to PFAS-free foams is crucial for mitigating further environmental and health risks.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify for legal action instantly.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a transportation spending bill allocating $70 million to help airports transition to PFAS-free firefighting foams.
This funding is significantly higher than the House’s proposed $5 million. Congress must reconcile the differences between the two versions of the T-HUD Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations Bill.
PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” persist in the environment and human body and are linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and immune system damage.
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting contains PFAS and can contaminate water supplies near airports.
Earlier this year, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization law established a five-year, $350 million grant program to aid airports in transitioning away from PFAS-containing foams.
The Senate T-HUD bill fully funds the program’s first year at $70 million and allocates $4.52 billion for airport infrastructure and safety improvements, and emissions reductions.
PFAS-free firefighting foams have been available since 2019, with over 100 fluorine-free options from 24 manufacturers meeting international aviation standards.
These alternatives are safe, effective, and ready for adoption by the military and U.S. airports.
Decades of using PFAS-laden foams have contaminated drinking and groundwater near airports.
The transition to PFAS-free foams is crucial for mitigating further environmental and health risks.
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact an attorney from TruLaw for a free, no-obligation legal consultation today and find out if you qualify for a firefighting foam lawsuit.
The AFFF Lawsuit is ongoing.
The federal judge overseeing the Firefighting Foam MDL has selected nine cases involving Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis to go to trial.
Other key developments in the AFFF Lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer, contact TruLaw for a free, no-obligation consultation today and find out if you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit.
You can also use the chatbot on this page to see if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit instantly.
On June 25, 2024, a mechanical malfunction at the Alaska Army National Guard Aviation Facility in Bethel led to a release of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing PFAS chemicals.
Approximately ten gallons of AFFF were discharged due to a fire suppression system failure, affecting the facility’s boiler room, hangar bay floor, and a small area outside.
The Alaska National Guard environmental team is hiring a PFAS-trained contractor for sample testing and ongoing site monitoring.
The Seneca Army Depot, now a Superfund site, has known PFAS contamination in its groundwater from historical AFFF use.
Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) request for PFAS testing in nearby creeks, the Army has not planned immediate testing, opting to sample off-base receptors only if PFAS migration is observed.
Following consultations with the Army, the EPA removed the testing request from its website but continues discussions on PFAS remediation with the Army Corps of Engineers.
Seneca County has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging PFAS contamination from the depot has damaged its drinking water supply.
The lawsuit claims that decades of AFFF use at the depot have contaminated the water supply with PFAS compounds.
The Waterloo water plant’s 2023 report shows PFOA levels at 4.24 ppt, disputing the higher contamination levels cited in the lawsuit.
The plant is upgrading its filtering systems to address PFAS contamination, with costs expected to exceed $12 million.
If you or a loved one have suffered from health problems related to AFFF exposure, you may qualify to pursue compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.
The AFFF lawsuit is ongoing.
The Department of Defense (DOD) is actively working to eliminate the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at its installations due to the significant health risks posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in AFFF.
PFAS exposure has been linked to adverse health effects, including impacts on fetal development, the immune system, the thyroid, liver damage, and cancer.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the DOD must discontinue the use of AFFF by October 1, 2024, with possible waivers extending to October 1, 2026, except for shipboard use.
The DOD has developed plans and schedules for replacing AFFF in all land-based mobile assets and facilities worldwide.
This includes creating specifications for a fluorine-free foam alternative to meet fire extinguishing performance standards.
However, the transition faces several challenges, including compatibility issues with existing firefighting systems, substantial funding requirements estimated at over $2.1 billion, and the need for extensive training for DOD firefighters in the use of fluorine-free foams.
Despite these obstacles, the DOD remains committed to phasing out AFFF and transitioning to safer alternatives.
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 addresses claims related to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting, which contains harmful chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
These chemicals are linked to severe health issues, including cancer.
In June, there were 8,270 AFFF lawsuit filings.
By July, this number increased to 9,198.
PFAS in AFFF persists in the environment and human body, causing long-term health problems such as cancer, liver damage, and immune system issues.
Firefighters and exposed communities are at significant risk, leading to more individuals joining the AFFF lawsuit.
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 Firefighting Foam lawsuit is ongoing.
Connecticut firefighters, represented by the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut, filed a class action lawsuit against DuPont, 3M, Honeywell, and 16 other defendants.
The lawsuit claims that the protective gear used by firefighters was contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” which are linked to cancer.
The lawsuit, filed in the New Haven federal court, targets firefighter gear containing PFAS.
Plaintiffs, including five other unions and five individual firefighters, allege that PFAS in jackets, pants, and other turnout gear were absorbed through the skin, ingestion, and inhalation.
This absorption rate increases with rising temperatures and sweat buildup, leading to an increased risk of adverse health conditions.
The lawsuit demands at least $5 million in damages for violations of Connecticut product liability law.
DuPont and 3M produced the PFAS used in the gear, while a Honeywell subsidiary sold the gear without warning firefighters of the risks.
DuPont stated the lawsuit is without merit, while 3M indicated its intention to defend itself or settle as appropriate.
Honeywell did not respond to requests for comment.
PFAS, used in many products, are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the human body or the environment and have been linked to various health issues.
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.
A provisional $750 million settlement has been approved by a federal judge in South Carolina, involving Tyco Fire Products LP, a Johnson Controls International PLC subsidiary.
This settlement addresses claims from public water systems regarding PFAS contamination, which allegedly stems from Tyco’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products used in firefighting.
This settlement is part of a broader multidistrict litigation (MDL) which includes substantial settlements, such as a $12.5 billion agreement with 3M Co. and a $1.2 billion agreement involving DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva.
The class eligible for this settlement consists of public water systems that had detected PFAS in their water sources by mid-May.
The MDL encompasses over 10,000 cases related to PFAS damage claims.
While this settlement resolves some issues, it does not conclude all claims within the larger AFFF litigation, leaving several categories of claims outstanding.
These unresolved claims include requests from public water providers for water testing and remediation, claims from individuals who have experienced health issues from AFFF exposure, requests for medical monitoring, property owners seeking contamination cleanup costs, and states claiming damages to natural resources.
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.
In the AFFF lawsuit, plaintiffs claim significant harm from PFAS chemicals, historically used in firefighting foams by the US Military and various airports.
This past month, AFFF lawyers added 209 new cases to the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) related to the AFFF lawsuit, bringing the total to 8,270 pending cases as of June 1st.
PFAS, the toxic chemicals in AFFF, are linked to severe health risks including cancer, liver damage, and immune system disruption.
A key concern is the PFAS contamination of water sources, especially around US Military installations, due to AFFF usage.
Recent technological breakthroughs, such as Battelle’s “The Annihilator,” uses supercritical water oxidation, offering promising methods for destroying PFAS in contaminated sites and firefighting foams.
These advancements in remediation technology are essential for effectively eliminating PFAS from affected environments.
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.
A significant $105 billion omnibus bill, now including $350 million for a grant program, aims to eliminate toxic AFFF foam at airports nationwide, including in New York.
The U.S. Senate has passed this bill, which is pending approval by the House. Its primary objective is to assist airports in replacing hazardous AFFF firefighting foam with safer alternatives.
The AFFF PFAS Replacement Program for Airports will allocate federal funding for airports to adopt PFAS-free foams, clean equipment, and conduct necessary training for personnel.
PFAS chemicals, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are notorious for their persistence in the environment and their association with serious health issues such as cancer and thyroid disorders.
The Capital Region, and particularly Hoosick Falls, has faced significant AFFF PFAS pollution, prompting state-led investigations and subsequent settlements.
Following a 2023 ruling by the EPA, it has been established that no level of PFAS is considered safe in drinking water, leading to calls for strict regulatory limits.
Furthermore, the aviation legislation strengthens consumer rights, including enhanced refund policies for passengers on delayed flights.
In related developments, San Francisco is poised to be the first city to prohibit PFAS in firefighter gear, with a mandate for the San Francisco Fire Department to transition to PFAS-free uniforms by June 30, 2026.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Average settlement amounts for AFFF lawsuits are expected to range from $20,000 for moderate claims to over $1,000,000 or more for severe or fatal claims.
AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts will vary widely based on the nature and severity of your illness, the extent of your exposure, and many other individualized aspects of your claim.
IMPORTANT: These estimates are in no way a guarantee of the settlement values for the AFFF Lawsuit.
These estimates are generalized estimations based on average healthcare expenses, personal damages, and ongoing care costs based on historic settlements from similar litigations.
For a more accurate idea of what these settlement values could look like for you, it’s best to contact an experienced AFFF lawyer to discuss the specific details of your case.
You can do so by using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation to quickly see if you are eligible to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
Based on the tier a claim falls into, potential settlement amount ranges for AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit claims may look something like this:
Settlement tiers in firefighting foam lawsuits offer a general framework for evaluating compensation based on case specifics.
These settlement tiers serve as guidelines, with actual payouts depending on the specifics of each plaintiff’s exposure, medical expenses, and long-term health outlook.
IMPORTANT: These estimates are in no way a guarantee of the settlement values for the AFFF Lawsuit.
These estimates are generalized estimations based on average healthcare expenses, personal damages, and ongoing care costs based on historic settlements from similar litigations.
For a more accurate idea of what these settlement values could look like for you, it’s best to contact an experienced AFFF lawyer to discuss the specific details of your case.
You can do so by using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation to quickly see if you are eligible to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
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.
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!
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.
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?