AFFF Lawsuit: What You Need to Know About PFAS Contamination

March 7 2023

An AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) lawsuit refers to legal action taken due to exposure to potentially toxic fire-fighting foam containing hazardous chemicals. Those affected may be able to take part in class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of this foam.

Overview of AFFF Lawsuit

An AFFF lawsuit is a legal action taken against manufacturers of firefighting foam that contain the toxic chemical, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Over the past several years, community and environmental groups have petitioned for, and received, a number of favorable legal decisions involving AFFF. The number of lawsuits and pending litigation continues to grow as more information has become available on PFAS contamination. While the legal landscape surrounding these cases is complicated, several key issues are now well established.

At the heart of most AFFF lawsuits are claims that manufacturer’s were negligent in their duty to protect consumers from potentially dangerous chemicals in their products. Critics argue that manufacturers knew or should have known about the dangers posed by PFAS exposure and failed, either through omission or commission, to protect workers and communities from potential health risks associated with their use of AFFF. On the other hand, some manufacturers contend that safety warnings about PFAS chemicals were available and that consumers need to take responsibility for their own health risks associated with the product.

The disputes over who is responsible for PFAS contamination vary from case to case but one thing is certain: those affected by environmental contamination may be eligible for compensation through an AFFF-related lawsuit. When considering filing a claim or joining an ongoing class action suit, it is critical to remember that cases are highly individualized and require strong evidence of health hazards connected to long-term exposure to AFFF chemicals.

This article will provide an overview of current AFFF lawsuits and discuss potential health risks posed by prolonged exposure to these toxic chemicals. In the next section, we will review what AFFF is and how it can pose potential health risks when used improperly.

AFFF Product and Potential Health Risks

Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFFs) are surfactant-based firefighting foams used for decades in military and civilian aviation facilities, industrial complexes, and fire training academies. The AFFF foams contain poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are highly resistant to heat, water, and oil, allowing the foam to coat surfaces more effectively and better suppress fires. In recent years, however, an increasing number of studies have pointed to this class of chemicals as major public health hazard with numerous adverse health effects for humans.

While the majority of research acknowledges that PFAS found in AFFF poses a potential health risk, some question the gravity of said health risk due to lack of sufficient evidence. Studies showed long-term exposure to PFAS has been linked to several soon development risks including thyroid disease, high cholesterol, weaken immune system, reproductive issues, neurodevelopmental problems in children exposed before and after birth, decreased success in fertility treatments and cancer. Additionally, some also believe that it can interfere with vaccines ā€“ although there is no confirmed data. However, many other reputable organizations such as EPA claim that insufficient evidence exists to definitively prove that these associations are consistent or causal.

The effects of PFAS vary greatly depending on individualsā€™ lifestyle factors such as age and pre-existing health conditions. The debate regarding the full scope of harms from exposure associated with AFFF products shows signs of continuing well into the future as researchers call for more concrete data to correlate the two together. As consumers wait for answers it is important to consider how this situation may affect them personally when evaluating their own risks of exposure.

The situation surrounding AFFFs continues to evolve rapidly as more information about their potential poanxiousional health risks come to light through further research. Following section will provide details on the companies involved in lawsuit enter against AFFFs in attempts to recover damages from public contamination caused by manufacturers or sellers due to their negligence.

Companies Involved in Lawsuit

The lawsuit against AFFF products alleges that multiple companies have known for decades of the health risks posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), yet they still failed to warn consumers of those dangers. The lawsuit named several major corporations as defendants including: 3M, Tyco Fire Products, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Chemguard, National Foam, Kidde-Fenwal, Fire Science Technologies and NAFFCO FZCO.

For decades now, these companies have been manufacturing PFAS-containing firefighting foams that are used predominantly in airports and military bases. 3M produces the most popular AFFF chemical which has been found in groundwater in over thirty states across the United States. While Tyco Fire Products sold the foam directly to private entities for use in commercial settings like airports, hotels and industrial complexes.

The chemical giants 3M, DuPont and Chemours are believed to be some of the biggest contributors to PFAS contamination since 1960 when these companies first started developing fluoropolymers for consumer goods such as nonstick cookware. Since then, many environmental groups have argued that these companies knew about the potential hazards of PFAS chemicals but didn’t do enough to protect consumers from the high levels of toxins now found in drinking water sources around the country.

The companies deny any negligence or meaningful risk associated with their products and argue that their internal policies have always met all applicable regulations. However, attorneys representing communities affected by PFAS contamination say that there is a compelling amount of evidence suggesting otherwise. They point out that companies like 3M had knowledge of the contaminants being emitted into local ecosystems long before there was governmental regulation on the matter.

At this time it remains uncertain how much financial responsibility each company will bear for damages caused by this contamination to American communities but what is certain is that this litigation will have a real impact on how corporations regulate toxic chemicals going forward.

Now we turn our attention to what chemicals are used in firefighting foam and how dangerous they can be to human health and environment.

Chemicals used in Firefighting Foam

Firefighting foam, also known as Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) contains two different types of chemicals: fluorosurfactants (PFAS) and hydrocarbon surfactants. PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals that are designed to repel oil and water, therefore allowing the foam to adhere to surfaces containing petroleum products. These chemicals, however, have been linked to a number of health issues such as reproductive problems, certain cancers and immune dysfunction.

The debate in using this type of fire suppression device lies in its notable effectiveness versus the bad side effects and damage it causes. On one hand, firefighting foam has been a reliable tool used by firefighters across the world for over 40 years due to their ability to put out fires quickly and effectively with minimal clean-up time required afterwards. On the other hand, the presence of PFASā€”chemicals that cannot be broken down through the process of natural oxidation or digestionā€” can cause severe environmental damage, potentially leading to widespread contamination of water systems near and around sites where AFFF has been used or stored.

It’s clear that prior to using this method of fire suppression more research into any potential contamination risks should be taken into consideration. Therefore, legal action is now being sought by many individuals who have experienced harm as a result of exposure to PFAS contained in AFFF foam. In the following section we will explain further what damages have been sought in this type of lawsuit.

  • As of 2021, more than 60,000 people have already joined class action lawsuits related to AFFF contamination.
  • The average settlement range is estimated to be between $3,000-$6,000, depending on the amount of contact each individual has had with contaminated water sources.
  • A Federal Class Action Lawsuit was filed in 2019 against 3M Company alleging that their military-grade firefighting foam contained PFAS chemicals resulting in widespread and potentially dangerous contamination of both public and private water supplies.

Claims and Damages Sought in Lawsuit

AFFF lawsuit claimants are taking legal action to seek damages from chemicals known as PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances). These substances, which are found in everyday consumer products such as non-stick cookware, food wrappers, and carpets, have been linked to various types of cancer, birth defects, and other health issues. As a result of this contamination, the claimants are asking for compensation for harm caused in areas where the chemicals were released – from medical expenses to lost property values. In addition, those filing suit have requested punitive damages for the companiesā€™ failure to inform them about the potential dangers associated with these chemicals.

The issue is complex, however. It’s not clear who should be held responsible for the release of these chemicals into the environment or how much damage has been done by their presence in communities. The companies being sued argue they weren’t even aware PFAS were being released or that they posed a health risk at all. At the same time, groups representing victims of PFAS exposure claim that while many corporations may not know that their actions are causing damage, they still bear responsibility for protecting people’s health.

No matter the ultimate outcome of this case ā€“ and it could take years before it’s resolved ā€“ what is certain is that everyone involved needs to better understand both sides of this debate so that effective solutions can be implemented. This brings us to the next section discussing potential damages due to contamination and how these effects can be addressed.

Potential Damages due to Contamination

Potential damages due to PFAS contamination can range from five-figure settlements to multimillion dollar judgments. The scope of possible harm caused by PFAS contamination depends on the extent of the pollution and whether the affected community is found at fault. In some cases, individuals or businesses may have been exposed to contaminants from leaky equipment or faulty disposal practices, which could result in liability issues if they canā€™t prove that they were responsible for the pollution. Additionally, companies responsible for polluting the environment may be liable for medical costs associated with any illnesses that arise as a result of their actions.

On one hand, companies and individuals might argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for contamination because it was beyond their control or because the polluting activity took place long before current regulations were established. Conversely, environmental advocates believe that those who polluted or allowed pollutants to enter waters and soils should be held accountable regardless of when it occurred.

Regardless of who is ultimately held responsible, the economic impact of a major PFAS contamination lawsuit could potentially be extremely costly, especially if there are multiple claimants involved. Whether an individual or corporation is navigating these waters alone or as part of a class action lawsuit, the financial issue must be addressed head on. Legal Action Taken Against Companies is not only important to hold responsible parties accountable, but also to ensure that impacted communities are compensated for their losses due to PFAS contamination. Now, let’s discuss more specifically what legal action has been taken against companies accused of releasing PFAS into groundwater and other sources.

Legal Action Taken Against Companies

Legal action taken against companies responsible for PFAS contamination is a complex issue that is picking up more attention as the issue of long-term health and environmental damage becomes widely known. Companies that produce and/or use PFAS in their products and operations have faced litigation related to the resulting PFAS contamination in water, soil, and air. Victims of contamination can pursue legal recourse by filing claims against such companies.

The results of these lawsuits have been mixed, with some courts ruling against companies and ordering them to pay out settlements while others have sided with corporations and denied suffering communities their right to compensation. While compensating victims is a priority, regulators must also ensure resources are dedicated towards environmental remediation so that future contamination can be avoided or mitigated.

In some cases, defending companies have asserted they were not aware of the potential dangers posed by their industrial processes or chemicals used in their products when the incident occurred. Others argue that this did not excuse companies from taking proper safety measures or alerting authorities to potential hazards after becoming fully aware of any risks associated with their activities.

No matter which side wins, adequate restitution for those affected should be secured. This means both financial penalties to hold wrongdoers accountable, as well as meaningful punitive damages for personal injury and property damage claims. Along with due compensation, governments should ensure preventative measures are properly implemented in order to avoid similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Thus far, most cases are continuing to work their way through the courts but with each prosecution, it becomes clearer what responsibilities companies bear when it comes to PFAS contamination and its consequences they bring forth to communities. The implications of these lawsuits stretch far beyond corporate boardrooms and could affect citizens across the country in ways we may not yet understand. With that in mind, let’s look at the implications for victims of contamination stemming from AFFF lawsuits brought against major conglomerates over the past few years.

Implications for Victims of Contamination

Water contamination is a nationwide epidemic that has far-reaching implications for victims of PFAS exposure. In the case of AFFF lawsuit, those affected by years of potential exposure to foam have found themselves in a difficult situation. On one hand, they are faced with potential health complications due to their contact with contaminated water, while on the other hand, many lack access to adequate legal representation. The plaintiffs face a number of legal challenges and ultimately risk being unable to pursue damages due to financial or bureaucratic constraints. This highlights the need for comprehensive reform that provides accessible legal remedies for those affected by environmental contaminants.

To gain a better understanding of how this issue affects those impacted by PFAS contamination, it’s helpful to look at two recent court cases as examples: the 2015 case of Wolken vs 3M and 2018’s Schlitz vs Scott Air Force Base. In both instances, plaintiffs sought monetary compensation due to their exposure to or consumption of PFAS-tainted water sources. Unfortunately, both cases had mixed results in the courts, leaving plaintiffs without redress for their costly injuries. While these cases offer insight into some of the possible outcomes when seeking reparations from large corporations or state entities, it is important to note that each legal battle is different and should be approached as such.

It is clear that victims of water contamination require more support than they currently possess in order to access legal resources and pursue claims against polluters or government entities. Accessible and affordable legal services are needed to address this injustice and ensure that victims can receive due compensation for their suffering. Until reform takes place, however, the prospects for many remain bleak; facing an uphill battle against those responsible for damaging their environment with no real recourse in sight.

Having explored the implications for victims of contamination in this section, itā€™s time to turn our attention in the next section towards exploring the conclusion and overall impact of this landmark AFFF lawsuit.

Conclusion and Impact of AFFF Lawsuit

The consequences of the AFFF lawsuit are far-reaching, as the suit will impact many of the US governmentā€™s agencies, 3M Company and other corporations, different states, localities and individuals. The legal battle is ongoing and how exactly it will be resolved remains to be seen.

As multiple parties are involved in the contamination, any lawsuit claiming damages from PFAS exposure is likely to involve difficult negotiations between those responsible for the contamination and the victims seeking redress. This could potentially lead to large-scale settlements or punitive damages for those affected.

At this point, much remains uncertain about potential solutions or outcomes that might arise from an AFFF lawsuit. These include:

ā€¢ How much money individuals harmed by PFAS exposure might be able to seek in settlements

ā€¢ Whether settlement funds will be used solely for compensating individuals or also for cleaning up sites that have been contaminated

ā€¢ What kind of medical treatments might be covered under such a settlement

ā€¢ How much responsibility and accountability governments and corporations will ultimately have in terms of PFAS contamination

In addition, while the plaintiffs involved in an AFFF lawsuit may achieve their desired outcomes through court proceedings or negotiation settlements with defendants, broader changes in public policy could also result if such litigation leads to increased regulation or enforcement of companies and government entities that contribute to PFAS contamination.

Given the potential seriousness of this problem, both sides must recognize their role in helping to protect human health from PFAS exposure and work together towards amenable solutions that address individualsā€™ concerns. After all, a successful resolution to this case will require compromise from all parties involved so that the rights and interests of those harmed by contamination can be fairly accounted for.


What are the potential consequences of the AFFF lawsuit?

The potential consequences of the AFFF lawsuit are significant. The lawsuits claim that manufacturers knew about the dangers of PFAS exposure and negligence allowed these chemicals to contaminate the environment, threatening public health and safety. In addition to forcing the companies liable for contamination to pay for expensive cleanup and medical expenses, the lawsuits could also lead to binding legislation to protect communities from PFAS contamination in the future. This would mean that stricter testing and monitoring standards would be implemented across the country and that companies would be required to take greater precautions in how they handle hazardous materials. Further, a favorable ruling could significantly reduce PFAS contamination throughout the United States by providing an effective example of what can happen when corporations knowingly sell a hazardous product or fail to act responsibly. Moreover, holding manufactures accountable through this case might discourage them from producing products with dangerous ingredients going forward.

Who is involved in the AFFF lawsuit?

There is a wide range of companies and organizations that are involved in the AFFF lawsuit, as well as individuals who have been affected by PFAS contamination. AFFF stands for Aqueous Film Forming Foam, which has been widely used by multiple industries and government entities, such as military and fire service personnel, to extinguish fires since the 1970s.

The wider lawsuit involves hundreds of plaintiffs from various backgrounds and professions, including those with health-related issues stemming from their exposure to PFAS contamination in their drinking water. These include individuals and families, various NGOs and environmental organizations, state attorneys general, and governmental entities. There are also a group of manufacturers being sued over the production of AFFF, including 3M Company, Chemours Co., DuPont de Nemours Inc., and Tyco Fire Products LP.

The lawsuit challenges the manufacturing companies for creating an ā€œunreasonably dangerousā€ product, resulting in personal injury and significant damages in some cases. All these parties continue to engage in legal scrutiny to prove that the use of AFFF was the cause of such contamination.

What is AFFF (aqueous film-forming foams)?

AFFF (aqueous film-forming foams) is a type of firefighting foam created to suppress fuel fires, such as petroleum and polar solvent fires. It is most commonly used by the military, firefighters, and the aviation industry in airports. AFFF works by releasing up its chemical components, perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) upon contact with heat or flames; these components then form a film over the surface which suppresses the flame. Unfortunately, PFASs can be extremely toxic and dangerous to human health and the environment when they are allowed to escape into the air or water due to contamination. As such, recent AFFF lawsuits have become increasingly common as citizens seek compensation for damages caused by such leaks and spills.