Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Lawsuits

As of July 2023, there were 5,227 pending AFFF lawsuits in South Carolina multidistrict litigation. The MDL encompasses the claims of individuals in multiple states, as well as multiple water supply companies requesting compensation for filtering the chemicals in the foam out of drinking water.

The first bellwether trial, which water supply companies and the City of Stuart, Florida, brought against 3M, began in June 2023. In June 2023, 3M reached a tentative agreement with multiple U.S. cities regarding water contamination, but the settlement has not been finalized.

More cities and individuals may lay health-related claims against 3M and other manufacturers, resulting in more multi-district or individual suits worldwide. Kidde-Fenwal Inc., a company that makes fire control systems, is filing for bankruptcy after facing thousands of lawsuits claiming AFFF and other PFAS in its products contaminated drinking water and soil.

Manufacturers such as DuPont and 3M are named in suits. Additionally, different views on who to hold responsible for the use of AFFF and PFAS chemicals are beginning to emerge from the litigation. Accusations have emerged that NFPA testing required use of the chemicals to meet testing standards for firefighter gear.

Civilian firefighters, military firefighters and military personnel use AFFF to control difficult-to-fight fires, especially fires involving liquid fuel. The film-forming foam coats a fire, smothering it and preventing reignition. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, firefighters have used AFFF since the 1970s, despite evidence that long-term exposure to the chemicals in AFFF increases cancer risk.

AFFF Lawsuit Settlements

In June 2023, 3M, a manufacturer of AFFF and other PFAS-containing products, offered a $10 billion settlement in an attempt to end litigation. Those involved in the litigation may choose to reject the offer, and individual lawsuits may still proceed against 3M and other manufacturers of the chemicals.

In October 2022, multiple plaintiffs filed against various chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont and Kidde-Fenwal, and against the State of New Jersey Port Authority and fire marshal. These claims show the scope of litigation and indicate that different entities may become involved in AFFF lawsuits.

In January 2021, Johnson Controls agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle an AFFF class action lawsuit that included about 1,200 Wisconsin residents. The residents claimed they suffered exposure, property value loss and diseases due to PFAS contamination of wells in the Marinette/Peshtigo area.

U.S. states, cities and municipalities and individual plaintiffs continue to file AFFF lawsuits against manufacturers and other entities because of the serious health risks associated with the foam. AFFF contains toxic chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Research has shown these chemicals can remain in the body and the buildup can cause serious illnesses, including cancer.

Lawsuits say AFFF manufacturers and other entities, including the NFPA, knew or should have known PFAS in the foam were hazardous and manufacturers and overseeing bodies failed to properly warn people of the health risks. PFAS are also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down and are the subject of hundreds of studies showing they damage health and the environment.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer doesn’t currently classify AFFF as a carcinogen, but the foam contains PFAS that organizations do classify as carcinogenic to animals and possibly to humans. Many of the lawsuits against AFFF manufacturers allege the foam led people to develop cancer.

Anyone exposed to AFFF and suffered adverse health problems may be eligible to file an AFFF lawsuit. Firefighters (civilian and military), military personnel, airport workers, oil rig workers and chemical plant workers who worked with the foam over many years have the greatest risk of developing serious health complications, including cancer.

Individuals may also be exposed to AFFF because the chemicals within the foam contaminate air, soil and groundwater, including drinking water. People who live in communities around military bases or other facilities that use AFFF are also at risk of ill health effects and may be eligible to file AFFF lawsuits.

If you think you or a loved one has developed these health conditions through exposure to AFFF, you may be able to file a lawsuit or join an AFFF MDL. A lawyer experienced in personal injury lawsuits or settlements can give you advice. An experienced lawyer can assess your eligibility and help you collect the documentation you need for your case.

Firefighter Files AFFF-Related Bladder Cancer Lawsuit

In September 2020, firefighter Lon Holliday, Jr. filed a lawsuit against 3M and several other companies after he developed bladder cancer that he claims was because of AFFF exposure. Holliday said he regularly used AFFF in training to extinguish fires while working as a civilian and military firefighter.

According to his suit, by the end of the 1980s, manufacturers performed research and testing that showed workers exposed to PFAS were more likely than average to develop cancer and other health problems. Manufacturers did not share this information, however. Holliday’s lawsuit is still ongoing.

3M was one of the first companies to manufacture and market AFFF. Since then, several other companies have manufactured and sold the foam to local and military firefighters and other groups under different brand names. AFFF lawsuits name many of these manufacturers.

AFFF lawsuits claim manufacturers knew that long-term exposure to PFAS can increase the likelihood of cancer and other serious illnesses but that they didn’t warn customers or the public. Other entities are also named in lawsuits, including the NFPA.

Lawsuits allege that the NFPA created a firefighting equipment testing standard that effectively requires PFAS in the equipment. Firefighters have a higher-than-average cancer rate, and lawsuits also allege that exposure to AFFF during active duty and training increases this risk.