AFFF Lawsuit Update: AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Overview

Written By:
Jessie Paluch
Jessie Paluch

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.

Key takeaways:

  • Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), which is used by the military, airports, and other industries, has been linked to numerous types of cancer and health effects.
  • The chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam, known as PFAS chemicals or forever chemicals, do not break down.
  • Scientific research has found that PFAS can remain in the environment and in the human body for an indefinite period of time.

Overview of the AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

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.

AFFF Lawsuit Update AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Overview; What is the AFFF Lawsuit; What is Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF); Firefighting Foam and PFAS Chemicals Health Risks; Previous AFFF Lawsuits and PFAS Contamination Lawsuits; Firefighting Foam Lawsuits; PFAS Exposure Lawsuits; AFFF Lawsuit Settlement Amounts; Can I File an AFFF Lawsuit; Gathering Evidence for Firefighting Foam Lawsuits; Assessing Damages in an AFFF Lawsuit
Play Video

Intro to the AFFF Lawsuit

Here is an overview of some of the key points surrounding the lawsuits:

  • AFFF Exposure Risks: AFFF contains PFAS chemicals linked to various cancers and health issues in firefighters and military personnel exposed to it.
  • Manufacturer Negligence: AFFF lawsuits allege that manufacturers knew of the risks but failed to warn users or take adequate steps to make AFFF safer.
  • Consolidated Litigation: Many AFFF lawsuits have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline the legal process for similar cases.

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.

Table of Contents
AFFF Lawsuit Update AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Overview; What is the AFFF Lawsuit; What is Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF); Firefighting Foam and PFAS Chemicals Health Risks; Previous AFFF Lawsuits and PFAS Contamination Lawsuits; Firefighting Foam Lawsuits; PFAS Exposure Lawsuits; AFFF Lawsuit Settlement Amounts; Can I File an AFFF Lawsuit; Gathering Evidence for Firefighting Foam Lawsuits; Assessing Damages in an AFFF Lawsuit

Lawsuit Updates

  • July 2024 Updates:

    July 12, 2024

    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 Tru Law using the chat on this page to determine if you qualify for filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit.

    July 9, 2024:

    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.

     July 1, 2024:

    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.

  • June 2024 Updates:

    June 26, 2024

    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.

    June 11, 2024

    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.

    June 3, 2024

    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.

  • May 2024 Updates:

    May 15th, 2024

    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.

    May 6th, 2024

    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. 

    May 1st, 2024

    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.

  • April 2024 Updates:

    April 15th, 2024

    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.

    April 1st, 2024

    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.

  • March 2024 Updates:

    March 21st, 2024

    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. 

    March 6th, 2024

    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.

  • February 2024 Updates:

    February 1st, 2024:

    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 2024 Updates:

    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.

  • December 2023 Updates:

    December 28th, 2023:

    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.

  • November 2023 Updates:

    November 28th, 2023:

    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.

    November 3rd, 2023:

    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.

  • October 2023 Updates:

    October 27th, 2023:

    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.

  • September 2023 Updates:

    September 19th, 2023

    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 2023 Updates:

    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.

  • July 2023 Updates:

    July 17th, 2023

    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.

  • June 2023 Updates:

    June 1st 2023

    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.

  • May 2023 Updates:

    May 1st, 2023

    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.

    May 2nd, 2023

    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.

    May 7th, 2023

    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.

    May 9th, 2023

    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.

    May 12th, 2023

    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.

  • April 2023 Updates:

    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.

  • March 2023 Updates:

    March 2nd, 2023

    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.

    March 7th, 2023

    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.

    March 16th, 2023

    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.

  • February 2023 Updates:

    February 3rd, 2023

    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.

    February 13th, 2022

    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.

    February 16th, 2023

    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.

    February 17th, 2023

    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.

    February 23rd, 2023

    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.

  • January 2023 Updates:

    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.

What is the AFFF Lawsuit?

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.

What is the AFFF Lawsuit

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.

What is Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)?

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.

Firefighting Foam and PFAS Chemicals Health Risks

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:

  • Bladder cancer
  • Breast cancer
  • Colon cancer
  • Kidney cancer
  • Liver cancer
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Colorectal cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Thyroid cancer
  • Increased cholesterol levels
  • Changes in liver enzymes
  • Small decreases in infant birth weights
  • Decreased vaccine response in children
  • Increased risk of high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnant women

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.

Background on AFFF and Its Health Risks

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has been a staple in firefighting, especially for tackling fuel fires.

Background on AFFF and Its Health Risks

However, its toxic components have raised serious health concerns, leading to numerous lawsuits.

What is AFFF Firefighting Foam

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:

  1. Contains PFAS chemicals, which create a film to deprive fires of oxygen.
  2. It is widely used in military and civilian fire suppression systems.
  3. Has been the firefighting standard for flammable liquid fires.
  4. Poses environmental persistence, as PFAS compounds are known as forever chemicals.

Health Hazards Associated with AFFF Exposure

Exposure to AFFF can pose considerable health risks due to its composition.

Health hazards from AFFF include:

  • Cancer: Studies suggest a link between AFFF exposure and an increased risk of cancer.
  • Immune System Effects: PFAS chemicals in AFFF may weaken the immune system.
  • Developmental Issues: Prenatal exposure to PFAS has been associated with potential developmental harm.
  • Other Health Effects: Liver damage, cholesterol changes, and more have been linked to PFAS exposure.

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.

Environmental Impact of AFFF Contamination

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.

Environmental Impact of AFFF Contamination

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:

  • Groundwater Contamination: AFFF use at military bases, airports, and firefighting training facilities has led to widespread groundwater contamination. PFAS chemicals can seep into the soil and eventually reach the water table, affecting drinking water sources.
  • Soil Contamination: PFAS chemicals from AFFF can accumulate in the soil, leading to long-term land contamination. This contamination can impact vegetation growth and pose risks to wildlife that inhabit the affected areas.
  • Bioaccumulation: PFAS chemicals have been found to bioaccumulate in plants and animals, meaning they can build up in the food chain over time. This can lead to higher concentrations of PFAS in animals at the top of the food chain, such as fish and humans who consume them.
  • Persistence: PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment. They do not break down easily and can remain in the environment for decades, challenging remediation efforts.

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.

Aquatic Ecosystem Disruption

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:

  1. Bioaccumulation in Fish: PFAS chemicals can accumulate in fish tissues, leading to potential health risks for humans and other animals that consume them. This bioaccumulation can also affect fish populations’ reproductive success and survival rates.
  2. Impact on Aquatic Plants: PFAS contamination can alter the growth and development of aquatic plants, which form the foundation of many aquatic food chains. This disruption can have cascading effects on the entire ecosystem.

Challenges in AFFF Remediation

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:

  1. Lack of Effective Treatment Methods: Current water treatment methods, such as activated carbon filtration, may not effectively remove all PFAS compounds. This limitation makes it difficult to clean up contaminated water sources and ensure the safety of drinking water.
  2. Soil Remediation Difficulties: PFAS chemicals can bind strongly to soil particles, making removing them from contaminated sites challenging. Excavating and disposing of contaminated soil can be costly and may not eliminate the problem.

Legal Basis for AFFF Lawsuits

The legal actions related to Aqueous film-forming foam AFFF pivot primarily on allegations of negligence and product liability.

Legal Basis for AFFF Lawsuits

These lawsuits contend that manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers and sold a defectively designed product.

Negligence and Failure to Warn

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:

  • Duty of Care: Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their products do not pose unreasonable risks.
  • Breach of Duty: AFFF producers are alleged to have breached this duty by failing to provide sufficient warnings.
  • Causation: The negligence must directly cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
  • Damages: Plaintiffs must have suffered actual damages due to the exposure.

Product Liability and Defective Design

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:

  • Design Defects: Allegations that the chemical composition of AFFF is inherently toxic and harmful to human health.
  • Manufacturing Defects: Some suits claim errors occurred during manufacturing, enhancing the danger.
  • Failure to Warn / Inadequate Instructions: Beyond negligence, there’s a claim that the AFFF products did not include proper instructions or warnings for safe use.
  • Strict Liability: In some states, plaintiffs need not prove negligence if they can show the product was defective and caused harm.

Injuries and Damages Claimed in AFFF Lawsuits

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) lawsuits underscore significant health risks for individuals with serious health conditions and the accompanying economic and non-economic damages.

Injuries and Damages Claimed in AFFF Lawsuits

These are primarily driven by prolonged exposure to the toxic substances found in AFFF.

Cancer and Other Serious Health Conditions

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:

  • Kidney cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Thyroid cancer
  • Bladder cancer
  • Liver cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Ulcerative colitis
  • Other serious illnesses

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.

Economic and Non-Economic Damages

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 costs of medical treatment and cancer care
  • Loss of income and work capacity linked to illness
  • Pain and suffering endured by the plaintiffs
  • Long-term health monitoring for those at an increased risk of developing cancer

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.

Impact on Military Personnel and Firefighters

Military personnel and firefighters are most affected by occupational exposure to AFFF.

Impact on Military Personnel and Firefighters

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:

  • Firefighting Training: Military and civilian firefighters regularly use AFFF during training exercises, leading to repeated exposure to PFAS chemicals.
  • Deployment Exposure: Military personnel deployed to areas where AFFF was used for firefighting or fire suppression may have been exposed to PFAS chemicals.
  • Long-Term Health Effects: Studies have shown that military firefighters and other personnel exposed to AFFF have a higher incidence of certain cancers, such as kidney and testicular cancer.
  • Lack of Awareness: Military personnel and firefighters were often not fully informed about the potential risks of AFFF exposure.

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.

Challenges in Proving Causation

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:

  • Latency Periods: Many health issues related to PFAS exposure, such as cancer, may not develop until years or even decades after the initial exposure. This long latency period can make proving a direct link between AFFF exposure and disease development challenging.
  • Multiple Exposures: Military personnel and firefighters may have been exposed to various chemicals and substances throughout their careers, making it difficult to isolate the effects of AFFF exposure.

Importance of Medical Monitoring

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:

  1. Early Detection: Regular medical screenings can help detect health issues, such as cancer, in their early stages when treatment is most effective. This early detection can improve survival rates and overall health outcomes.
  2. Preventive Measures: Medical monitoring can also help identify individuals at higher risk of developing health issues related to AFFF exposure. This identification allows for implementing preventive measures and lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of disease development.

Companies Named as Defendants in AFFF Lawsuits

The litigation surrounding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has identified multiple entities as defendants.

Companies Named as Defendants in AFFF Lawsuits

These include major chemical manufacturers and entities frequently using AFFF, such as military installations and airports.

Manufacturers of AFFF Firefighting Foam

Leading companies linked to the production of AFFF have faced allegations of environmental contamination and health risks due to their products.

Notable defendants include:

  • 3M Company: Faced numerous lawsuits over AFFF products containing harmful PFAS chemicals linked to serious health and environmental issues.
  • The Chemours Company: Implicated for producing PFAS used in AFFF foams; accused of not warning about the dangers despite known risks.
  • Tyco Fire Products: Targeted in litigation for their manufacture of AFFF containing hazardous chemicals, alongside claims of undisclosed risks.
  • National Foam: Recognized as a significant manufacturer in the firefighting foam industry and named in lawsuits concerning PFAS contamination.
  • DuPont: Involved in legal actions along with its spin-off Chemours for producing AFFF and PFAS chemicals, leading to environmental and health damages.
  • Dozens of other manufacturers

The involvement of these companies in litigation underscores the widespread concern over the potential impacts of AFFF on both the environment and public health.

Military Bases and Airports Using AFFF

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:

  • Many military bases have historically used AFFF for firefighting and training exercises, which has led to scrutiny over the potential environmental repercussions.
  • Similarly, airports employing AFFF are undergoing evaluation for the role they may have played in the release of potential environmental contaminants.

The accountability of such installations is an important aspect of the ongoing legal examinations linked to AFFF.

Status of AFFF Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

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.

Status of AFFF Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

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.

Consolidation of AFFF Cases in Federal Court

Centralization has been the guiding strategy for managing the multitude of AFFF lawsuits.

Here are the key points of consolidation in the federal court:

  • The commonality of facts and laws across cases justified the consolidation.
  • The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation selected the District of South Carolina for the proceedings.
  • Case management orders direct the litigation’s administrative aspects, including case filings.
  • A designated shell case number facilitates this court’s direct filing of new AFFF-related suits.

Bellwether Trials and Potential Settlements

Bellwether trials play a significant role in shaping the landscape of mass torts like the AFFF MDL.

Important aspects include:

  1. Preliminary bellwether trials provide insights into jury reactions and legal arguments.
  2. The outcomes can lead to global settlements, offering resolution without requiring each case to go to trial.
  3. Status conferences maintain momentum in the discovery process and in litigating these cases.
  4. The ongoing firefighting foam lawsuit settlements may influence future cases and potential litigants.

How to File an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

When considering an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit, individuals must understand the eligibility requirements and timelines.

How to File an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Eligibility Criteria for AFFF Claims

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:

  1. Documented exposure to AFFF, particularly in occupational settings like military bases or firefighting grounds.
  2. Medical diagnoses such as cancer have been scientifically linked to the chemicals found in AFFF.
  3. Proof that the health issues are directly connected to the exposure of AFFF and not other factors.
  4. Lack of prior knowledge about the foam’s harmful effects supports a claim of negligence by the manufacturers.

Statute of Limitations for AFFF Lawsuits

The timeframe to file legal action, known as the statute of limitations, varies by state.

Here’s a brief overview:

  • Cases must typically be filed within a specified period after a claimant discovers or should have discovered health problems related to AFFF exposure.
  • This period can range from one to six years, depending on the state laws where the firefighting foam lawsuit is filed.
  • Individuals may lose their right to seek compensation if a claim is not filed within the appropriate window.
  • It’s essential to check with a legal professional to understand the relevant deadlines and avoid missing the opportunity to file.

Proving Causation in AFFF Litigation

In AFFF litigation, demonstrating causation is pivotal to a plaintiff’s case.

Proving Causation in AFFF Litigation

It involves connecting the dots between exposure to AFFF firefighting foam and subsequent health issues.

Establishing Exposure to AFFF Firefighting Foam

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:

  • Military or airport employment records indicating the use of AFFF.
  • Incident reports of toxic exposure during firefighting operations.
  • Receipts of purchase or inventory lists from fire departments.
  • Witness testimonies confirming the presence and use of AFFF.

Demonstrating the Link Between AFFF and Health Issues

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:

  • Medical records pinpoint diagnoses such as AFFF-caused cancer or other conditions.
  • Scientific studies support the connection between PFAS exposure and health risks.
  • Expert testimony to draw direct correlations between the two.
  • Epidemiological data to back up claims of increased health risks following exposure to AFFF.

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.

Future of AFFF and Alternative Firefighting Methods

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.

Future of AFFF and Alternative Firefighting Methods

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:

  1. PFAS-Free Foams: Manufacturers have been developing PFAS-free firefighting foams that can effectively extinguish fires without the environmental and health risks associated with PFAS. These alternative foams use different chemical compositions that are less persistent and less likely to bioaccumulate.
  2. Fluorine-Free Foams: Some companies have developed fluorine-free firefighting foams that do not contain any fluorinated compounds. These foams rely on other chemical agents to create a foam blanket and suppress fires. While they may not be as effective as AFFF in certain situations, they offer a safer alternative.
  3. Regulatory Changes: Governments and regulatory agencies are taking steps to phase out the use of AFFF and PFAS-containing foams. The EPA has issued guidance on using PFAS-containing foams and is working on developing enforceable regulations to address the issue. Some states have already banned using AFFF for training and require alternative foams.
  4. Remediation Efforts: As the use of AFFF is phased out, remediation efforts to address existing contamination will continue. This may involve developing new technologies and methods for removing PFAS from soil and water and long-term monitoring of affected sites.

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.

Challenges in Transitioning to Alternative Foams

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:

  • Cost: Alternative foams may be more expensive than traditional AFFF, which can strain budgets for firefighting agencies and military organizations.
  • Effectiveness: While alternative foams have shown promise in extinguishing fires, they may not be as effective as AFFF in certain situations, such as fires involving flammable liquids.

Need for Continued Research and Development

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:

  1. Improving Foam Formulations: Researchers can work on developing new foam formulations that offer enhanced fire suppression capabilities while minimizing environmental and health risks.
  2. Long-Term Studies: Conducting long-term studies on alternative firefighting foams’ environmental and health impacts is crucial to ensure their safety and sustainability.

TruLaw: Accepting Clients for AFFF Lawsuits

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • What are the average settlement amounts for AFFF lawsuits?

    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.

  • Who is at risk for exposure to firefighting foam?

    Individuals who are most at risk for exposure to firefighting foam include:

    • Firefighters
    • Military personnel
    • Workers in industries dealing with flammable liquids
    • Employees at airports, military bases, factories, and plants

    These individuals may have handled AFFF routinely, putting them at a higher risk of exposure to the harmful chemicals contained in the foam.

  • How does service in the Navy affect an AFFF lawsuit claim?

    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.

  • What qualifications are required to participate in an AFFF lawsuit?

    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.

  • What to do if you’ve developed cancer from AFFF firefighting foam exposure?

    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.

  • What are the potential firefighting foam lawsuit settlement amounts?

    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.

Written By:
Jessie Paluch
Jessie Paluch

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:

Camp Lejeune Lawsuit

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.

Tylenol Lawsuit

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.

AFFF Lawsuit

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.

Do You
Have A Case?

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?

Helpful Sites & Resources