Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
On this page, we’ll provide an overview of PFAS lawsuit settlement amounts, notable PFAS lawsuit settlement amounts in the US, factors affecting PFAS settlement amounts, and much more.
Key elements of PFAS settlement amounts include:
If you or your community has been affected by PFAS water contamination, you may be eligible for significant compensation through a PFAS lawsuit settlement.
Contact TruLaw today for a free case evaluation to see if you qualify to file a PFAS water contamination lawsuit and maximize your potential settlement amount.
PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” have been linked to various health concerns due to their persistence in the environment and ability to accumulate in drinking water sources.
PFAS settlements may provide military-members, firefighters and surrounding communities affected by PFAS exposure an opportunity to recover damages for serious health conditions, such as kidney and liver cancer.
These settlements often address the environmental and health impacts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
This section explores how specific PFAS chemicals infiltrate water sources and the resulting potential health risks.
PFAS contamination in water sources often originates from industrial operations, firefighting aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), and consumer products.
These substances are resistant to breaking down, making them highly persistent in the environment and hence referred to as “forever chemicals.“
Key pathways through which PFAS enter water systems include:
PFAS lawsuits typically result from contamination caused by chemicals that do not degrade over time.
These settlements aim to relieve impacted communities and fund the cleanup of polluted water systems.
Notable consequences include:
Exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water has been associated with several adverse health effects.
Potential health risks include, but are not limited to:
These settlements often involve large corporations, public health advocacy groups, and legal actions to ensure fair compensation and effective cleanup measures.
Addressing these health risks involves:
Understanding and mitigating PFAS water contamination remain critical for protecting public health and ensuring safe drinking water.
The legal basis for PFAS water contamination lawsuits involves multiple complexities, including establishing negligence and strict liability, as well as proving causation.
Environmental agencies and various plaintiffs are key players in these legal battles, and they must navigate the intricacies of PFAS litigation.
Negligence in PFAS cases often arises from companies’ failure to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture, use, or disposal of these chemicals.
Demonstrating a breach of duty is essential.
Plaintiffs typically need to show that the defendant knew or should have known about the potential harm caused by PFAS chemicals.
Strict liability claims do not require proving negligence.
Instead, plaintiffs must establish that the defendant’s actions led to contamination, irrespective of their intent or care level.
In the context of PFAS litigation, this means showing that the defendant’s actions directly resulted in water contamination.
Key points for proving negligence and strict liability:
Entities like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often provide crucial evidence in these cases, highlighting violations and contaminations.
Establishing causation in PFAS lawsuit settlements involves linking the contamination directly to the defendant’s actions.
The district court often requires robust evidence showing a definitive link between the use or disposal of PFAS and the contamination of water supplies.
This is particularly challenging given the persistent nature of PFAS chemicals.
Key methods for establishing causation:
In cases involving class action lawsuits, establishing causation on a broader scale is required.
Plaintiffs in PFAS class action lawsuits must demonstrate that widespread contamination affects a significant portion of the population, necessitating robust, generalized evidence.
These components are crucial for the final approval of settlements and for ensuring that all affected parties receive appropriate compensation.
Several significant settlements involving major companies and substantial financial agreements have been reached in the US concerning PFAS contamination.
These settlements highlight the widespread impact of toxic chemicals and the efforts to address public health and environmental concerns.
In 2017, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a $671 million settlement to resolve thousands of lawsuits related to PFAS contamination from their Washington Works plant in West Virginia.
Residents alleged that chemicals like PFOA polluted local water sources, leading to serious health issues.
Key points include:
In 2018, 3M agreed to pay an $850 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by the state of Minnesota over PFAS pollution.
The PFAS class action lawsuit stated that 3M had contaminated drinking water in the east metro area of the Twin Cities.
Main aspects of the settlement:
3M’s payment, one of the largest for PFAS contamination, underscored the severity of the pollution and its long-term impacts.
These settlements involving PFAS manufacturing highlight the scale of legal repercussions and the efforts to mitigate toxic chemical pollution in affected areas.
Settlement amounts in PFAS lawsuits are influenced by several important variables, including the extent and duration of water contamination, the number of plaintiffs, and the severity of their health issues.
The extent of contamination and its duration are primary factors in determining settlement amounts in PFAS lawsuits.
Larger areas with widespread contamination issues generally lead to higher settlements to cover the extensive remediation required.
Important elements impacting settlement amounts:
For example, the 3M settlement offers between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion, largely influenced by how widespread and prolonged the contamination was.
The number of affected individuals and the severity of health issues they experience significantly influence the settlement figures.
In cases where many people are involved, and the health consequences are severe, settlements tend to be higher to compensate for medical costs and suffering adequately.
Key factors to consider:
For instance, the EPA settlement for 3M required significant resources to address a broad spectrum of health risks in the affected population, necessitating extensive sampling and treatment of drinking water.
Calculating damages in PFAS lawsuits involves assessing both the economic and non-economic impacts on property owners, water providers, and natural resources.
This process ensures that compensation accurately reflects the reality of the harm caused by PFAS contamination.
Economic damages cover measurable financial losses resulting from PFAS contamination.
These damages often include costs related to remediation, health monitoring, and property value declines.
Key areas of economic damage typically include:
These economic damages aim to restore the financial position of property owners and water providers impacted by PFAS contamination.
Non-economic damages address intangible losses that are not easily quantifiable, such as emotional distress and loss of quality of life caused by PFAS contamination.
Important aspects of non-economic damages include:
These non-economic damages provide compensation beyond measurable financial losses, acknowledging the broader impact of PFAS contamination on individuals and communities.
Punitive damages play a significant role in lawsuits concerning PFAS water contamination.
These damages are awarded to deter companies from future misconduct and punish those responsible for harmful actions.
Key factors influencing punitive damages:
These factors combined determine the punitive damages that can be levied against companies like 3M involved in PFAS contamination lawsuits.
In recent years, several settlements have highlighted the punitive damages linked to PFAS water contamination.
For instance, 3M agreed to significant settlements to address personal injury claims related to public water systems contamination.
Punitive damage calculations often consider:
These elements ensure that punitive damages not only punish, but also deter future negligent behavior.
Through these legal measures, communities aim for safer environments and responsible corporate behavior.
Obtaining fair settlement amounts in PFAS lawsuits involves significant challenges related to proving health effects and dealing with timing constraints.
One of the primary challenges in PFAS contamination lawsuits centers on demonstrating the long-term health effects of PFAS exposure.
PFAS exposure is linked to several health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, and immune system disruptions.
However, establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship between PFAS contamination and health concerns is difficult due to the latency of symptoms.
Key factors complicating proof of health effects include:
The statute of limitations presents another significant hurdle.
Legal frameworks often set a strict window for filing lawsuits, and delays in recognizing symptoms due to PFAS exposure can bar plaintiffs from seeking compensation.
Challenges related to the statute of limitations include:
Successfully overcoming these obstacles requires careful legal strategy and scientific validation to ensure that individuals affected by PFAS contamination can achieve fair settlements.
Attorneys play essential roles in guiding plaintiffs through the complexities of PFAS-related legal actions and in securing the maximum possible settlement amounts.
Selecting the right PFAS water contamination lawyer is crucial for successful outcomes.
They should have experience in environmental law and a track record of handling PFAS lawsuits specifically.
Key attributes to look for include:
A strong lawyer will navigate the complex legal landscape, helping clients understand their rights and options.
Effective negotiation strategies can significantly influence the settlement amounts in PFAS lawsuits.
Attorneys employ various tactics to maximize these amounts.
Common strategies include:
Attorneys work diligently to ensure plaintiffs receive compensation that covers medical costs, property damage, and other losses relating to PFAS contamination.
As the landscape around PFAS litigation evolves, several factors, such as potential legislative changes and ongoing scientific research, will significantly impact future settlement amounts.
Proposed changes in legislation could influence PFAS lawsuit settlement amounts.
In April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
These legislative changes could lead to:
These legislative developments will significantly shape future PFAS litigation, potentially increasing the financial burdens on the companies involved.
Ongoing research continues to reveal new information about the health effects of PFAS and potential remediation techniques.
PFAS is linked to severe health impacts, including increased risks of cancers, liver damage, and decreased birth weight.
Scientific findings have important implications:
As research progresses, it plays a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape and financial outcomes of PFAS-related lawsuits.
Maximizing your PFAS lawsuit settlement amount involves understanding the implications of PFAS contamination and the importance of holding polluters accountable.
This requires detailed attention to the steps and methods used by legal firms like TruLaw, which specializes in environmental lawsuits.
Ensuring Public Health Protection
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are toxic chemicals that persist in the environment, potentially causing severe health issues.
Holding entities responsible for PFAS pollution is crucial for preventing further contamination and safeguarding public health.
Legal actions push companies to clean up contaminated areas and halt the production or improper disposal of these harmful substances.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated certain PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Lawsuits against polluters create legal precedents that pressure other companies to follow environmental regulations.
It also ensures ongoing enforcement of laws designed to protect communities from toxic exposures.
Communities impacted by PFAS contamination need financial assistance to address the health and environmental damages.
Successful lawsuits, such as those pursued in the PFAS water contamination lawsuits, aim to provide settlements that fund medical monitoring, water filtration systems, and other remedial measures.
This support is essential for residents facing long-term health risks.
Individuals and communities affected by PFAS contamination may be eligible for significant legal settlements.
Settlement amounts can be maximized by following key steps and working with experienced attorneys.
The steps to maximize your PFAS lawsuit settlement includes the following details:
With proper case preparation and expert legal guidance, those impacted by PFAS can fight for just compensation.
Holding polluters accountable is key to obtaining the maximum possible settlement amounts.
Holding companies accountable is crucial not only for current compensation but also to deter future neglect.
It emphasizes the importance of corporate responsibility and the protection of natural resources.
By enforcing stringent measures, legal actions can help reduce the prevalence of such incidents in the future.
PFAS lawsuit settlements often involve large monetary payouts ranging from billions of dollars to support affected public water systems.
These settlements allocate funds to public water systems for cleanup efforts and have faced bipartisan opposition questioning the adequacy of the proposed amounts.
PFAS contamination in water sources often originates from industrial operations, firefighting foams (AF), and Tyco fire products.
These “forever chemicals” enter water systems through pathways such as industrial discharge, landfill leachate, agricultural runoff, and the use of AFFF at military bases and airports.
Exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water has been linked to several adverse health effects, including increased cancer risk, liver damage, developmental issues, immune system impacts, metabolic disorders, and reproductive problems.
Addressing these health risks involves implementing safe PFAS-level guidelines, pursuing legal actions, and promoting community education and transparency.
In 2017, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a $671 million settlement to resolve lawsuits related to PFOA contamination from their West Virginia plant.
In 2018, 3M agreed to pay $850 million to settle the filed lawsuits by the state of Minnesota over PFAS pollution affecting the Twin Cities’ drinking water.
Attorneys play crucial roles in guiding plaintiffs through the complexities of PFAS-related legal actions and securing the maximum possible settlement amounts.
Choosing the right lawyer with experience in environmental law and PFAS lawsuits is essential, as they employ effective negotiation strategies to ensure fair compensation for medical costs, property damage, and other losses.
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 PFAS Contamination 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?