Back in the 1960s, the U.S. military cooked up a firefighting hero – a foam called AFFF that put out even the nastiest airport and industrial fires. But this wonder weapon came with a vicious surprise. As it turned out, AFFF contained harmful chemicals called PFAS, which science now suggests might be linked to cancer and other health problems.
Veterans exposed to AFFF are taking a stand. They’re filing lawsuits against the companies that made the foam, seeking compensation for the health issues caused by the exposure to AFFF. This blog will dive into the latest developments in these legal battles.
AFFF: From Firefighter’s Ally to Potential Threat
For decades, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has been a cornerstone of firefighting. This specialized foam boasts the unique ability to blanket burning fuel sources, essentially cutting off the flames’ oxygen supply. PFAS chemicals are the secret weapon within AFFF, allowing it to spread rapidly and extinguish fires with exceptional efficiency.
However, AFFF’s legacy is becoming increasingly complex. Recent studies raise concerns about the environmental and health risks associated with PFAS. These “forever chemicals” resist natural degradation, accumulating in soil, groundwater, and even drinking water supplies, particularly near military bases with a history of AFFF use.
PFAS has been identified in the blood of an alarming 97% of Americans, causing widespread concern regarding potential health consequences. According to TruLaw, these potent health conditions include various cancers, liver damage, fertility problems, and autoimmune disorders.
Firefighters and military personnel who have faced repeated exposure to AFFF are especially vulnerable to developing chronic health issues. While the use of PFAS in AFFF has been phased out in recent decades, its lingering presence in the environment continues to pose a potential threat.
Seeking Justice: The Legal Landscape
The objective of the AFFF litigation is to obtain reparation for individuals who have experienced adverse health effects as a result of their contact with firefighting foam. These lawsuits hold manufacturers accountable for injuries and illnesses allegedly linked to PFAS exposure.
A significant development in the legal arena is the consolidation of AFFF-related claims into multidistrict litigation (MDL). This allows for a centralized approach, streamlining the legal process for victims.
In February 2024, a Nevada firefighter diagnosed with bladder cancer filed a lawsuit alleging a direct link between his illness and past exposure to AFFF during his service between 1992 and 1997. This case has been combined into the ongoing MDL with thousands of other cases.
As of March 2024, this multidistrict litigation encompasses over 7,000 cases targeting 25 different companies, including industry giants like 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products.
Read also: Why Is the Opioid Use Disorder Drug Suboxone Under the Legal Scanner?
PFAS Lawsuits: A Rising Tide of Claims
The tide is turning on PFAS. In 2023, a wave of lawsuits against chemical companies resulted in AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts exceeding a staggering $11 billion. Here’s a glimpse into some of these landmark cases:
Multi-Party Settlement: DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva joined forces to settle numerous lawsuits alleging the toxicity of PFAS. The combined settlement amount reached a staggering $4 billion, highlighting the widespread nature of PFAS concerns.
West Virginia Fights Back: DuPont reached a separate settlement of $671 million with a West Virginia community impacted by PFAS contamination. This case underscores the potential for local communities to hold polluters accountable.
Minnesota Takes Action: 3M, a major chemical producer, was ordered by the Minnesota government to pay over $800 million for its role in PFAS environmental contamination. This hefty settlement reflects the growing recognition of the potential harm caused by these chemicals.
What Does 2024 Hold?
Looking ahead to 2024, legal experts predict a surge in PFAS-related lawsuits beyond the current Multi-District Litigation (MDL). These lawsuits are expected to target consumer brands and include more personal injury claims from individuals who believe their health has been harmed by PFAS exposure.
Within the ongoing MDL, a critical “bellwether” trial is scheduled for August 2024. This trial will serve as a benchmark for future cases, potentially setting legal precedents for holding companies accountable for the costs associated with PFAS cleanup.
Beyond South Carolina, where the MDL is currently focused, other cases are poised to move forward. These include lawsuits related to PFAS contamination in North Carolina’s Cape Fear River and Maine’s groundwater systems. Furthermore, settlements are anticipated between chemical companies and state attorneys general regarding the damage caused by PFAS to waterways and wildlife.
This year looks to be critical in the fight against PFAS. As lawsuits continue to rise and settlements are reached, public awareness of these “forever chemicals” is likely to increase significantly. This, in turn, could lead to stricter regulations and a renewed focus on developing safer alternatives.
