AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Our lawyers are handling AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits around the country.

This page provides the most recent news and updates on the AFFF firefighting foam class action lawsuit and our prediction of the settlement amounts plaintiffs with AFFF cancer lawsuits can expect to receive. You will not get more updated news on the AFFF litigation anywhere else.

March 8, 2025: Growth Continues in MDL

Amid rumors of a potential settlement, the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL saw its highest monthly volume of new cases in almost a year. 338 new AFFF cases were added in February, bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,430.

February 26, 2025: Are We Getting Closer to an AFFF Settlement?

We are now it what feels like the final lap of the AFFF/PFAS litigation marathon. Everyone is trying to move at breakneck speed to verify what cases have proof and which cases do not.  So there is a close look at discovery and product identification.

If the settlement door shuts at some point soon, there will not be much advance notice. There will be a moment when lawyers put their pencils down and shut down taking new claim.  So if you are thinking about making a move and bringing a claim, you should do that right now.

February 5, 2025: MDL Sees Surge in New Cases

After a brief decline, AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are again rising. In October and November 2023, the total number of pending cases in the MDL dropped, largely due to water contamination claims reaching settlements and subsequently being dismissed. But that decline was short-lived.

By December, 270 new cases had been added, and in January, the pace of filings accelerated even further, with 459 additional lawsuits bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,092.

So, what’s driving this increase? Settlement rumors. When a global settlement appears to be in the works, attorneys move quickly to get cases on file before any cutoff is established. If a settlement is reached, there is often a deadline for inclusion, and waiting too long could mean missing out on compensation entirely.

For those affected by PFAS exposure, this surge in filings is a strong indication that time may be limited to take legal action. Many attorneys are advising potential claimants to file sooner rather than later to ensure their case is part of any future resolution.

Our law firm receives new AFFF-related inquiries daily, though the pace of new filings will fluctuate.  AFFF lawyers often file new claims in batches, which sometimes distorts the numbers.

February 13, 2025: Expert Discovery

Expert discovery must be completed by February 14, 2025.

January 23, 2025:  New York Firefighter Lawsuit

In a new AFFF lawsuit filed in the MDL,  a firefighter from Flagstaff, Arizona, and his wife have alleged severe injuries caused by prolonged exposure to firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals.

The plaintiff began his firefighting career with the Flagstaff Fire Department in 2002 and continues to serve the department. Throughout his career, he regularly used and handled Aqueous Film-Forming Foams during both training exercises and emergency firefighting operations.

The plaintiff recalls first being exposed to these foams during his initial training at the fire academy, where he frequently handled Class A and Class B firefighting foams. This exposure often involved direct skin contact, leaving his body covered in foam from head to toe during drills and clean-up activities. Like just about every firefighter in this litigation, he was not warned of any potential health risks associated with the foams and was led to believe that they were as harmless as concentrated dish soap.

For over two decades, the plaintiff’s responsibilities have included driving, operating, and maintaining fire trucks, which required him to pump AFFFs, clean foam residue from equipment, and replenish foam supplies. He routinely came into direct contact with AFFFs as part of these duties. Despite this repeated exposure, the manufacturers and distributors of these products failed to provide any warnings or instructions to minimize contact or highlight potential health hazards.

The plaintiff’s medical history reveals that he was first diagnosed with testicular cancer at the age of 21, before his firefighting career. Following successful treatment, including an orchiectomy, he fully recovered. However, after more than a decade of handling AFFFs, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer again. This recurrence included a significant tumor that required further medical interventions, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have not surprisingly caused lasting health complications.

Unlike many cancers, a recurrence is very rare. His doctor noted that it is exceedingly rare for an individual to develop testicular cancer twice, especially in cases where there is no history of smoking or other significant risk factors. The plaintiff has never smoked and had been in good health prior to his exposure to AFFFs.

In addition to his personal health challenges, the plaintiff’s wife has been directly impacted by the situation, as she and her husband have endured loss of companionship and the emotional and financial burdens associated with his medical treatments. They have been married since 1997 and reside in Flagstaff, where they have established their life together.

The plaintiff originally filed in Arizona and the defendants are seeking to remove the case to federal court.

January 7, 2025: New Study

January 3, 2025: MDL Adds 270 New Cases

After months of declining numbers, the AFFF firefighting foam MDL has resumed growth, with 270 new cases added in December. This brings the total to 7,633 pending cases, as litigation over water contamination and health risks continues to expand amid rumors that we are getting closer to settlement.

More AFFF Lawsuit Updates

December 30, 2024: Ulcerative Colitis Cases to Go Through Tier 2 Discovery

Lawyers for the defendants and the plaintiffs recently submitted a joint request for a new Case Management Order to establish a bellwether discovery pool for personal injury cases in which the plaintiff’s primary injury is ulcerative colitis. A handful of ulcerative colitis cases have already gone through Tier 1 discovery, and now a small group of up to 4 of these cases will be selected to go through more extensive Tier 2 discovery.

December 12, 2024: New Lawsuits Continue to Be Filed

New firefighting foam lawsuits continue to be filed in an MDL. In one claim filed last week in the MDL, Amanda, Ohio sued the usual cast of characters. The plaintiff, a former U.S. Navy firefighter, blames his thyroid disease diagnosis on prolonged exposure to AFFF during training and firefighting operations. The lawsuit claims the defendants designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, despite knowing their toxic and bioaccumulative properties.

The complaint outlines allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defects, and fraudulent concealment. It accuses the defendants of knowingly misrepresenting the safety of their products and failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions to users. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses, as well as injunctive relief to address the ongoing risks associated with PFAS exposure.

November 15, 2024: MDL Sheds Cases

The number of cases pending in the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL decreased by 2,800 in October. This marks the first monthly decrease since the MDL began. This is almost certainly the result of the dismissal of water contamination cases covered by last year’s settlement.

November 14, 2024: October 2025 Trial Date

We now have a trial date for the Tier 2 Group A bellwether trials, which is set to begin on October 6, 2025. So, what’s next?

The immediate focus will be on whether the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses will be allowed to testify, a decision that hinges on overcoming Daubert challenges raised by the defense. In a Daubert challenge, the court assesses the plaintiffs’ experts to ensure their testimony is relevant to the case and based on scientifically reliable methods.

The overarching question is when do the defendants want to settle this case?  Before or after Daubert?  For defendants, the upside of waiting until after Daubert is knocking out cases.  But it is really unlikely that defendants win.  If they pursue a global AFFF settlement before Daubert, the upside is that the experts have not yet been approved.

The latter strategy is probably the smarter play, but 3M is the ringleader of this defense. It skews toward believing the false hope generated by its lawyers and going for broke.

November 1, 2024:  Progress Towards First Trial (October 6, 2025) Being Made

The court has issued a new case management order for the personal injury bellwether trial pool cases, laying out the timeline for discovery, expert witness disclosures, and trial preparations. This gives us a clearer picture of the path ahead to push these cases closer to trial and, hopefully, a global AFFF settlement before that first trial.

For Tier 2 Group A cases, the parties will continue fact-finding efforts until December 16, 2024, with strict limits on additional discovery requests. They will also coordinate non-party depositions during this period. After the discovery phase, plaintiffs and defendants will exchange expert witness reports, with expert depositions set to conclude by May 14, 2025. The first Group A cases trial is scheduled for October 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, the parties will negotiate which Group A cases should proceed to trial, with decisions on trial designations and motions due by April 2025. Any summary judgment or Daubert motions must be filed by June 6, 2025, with responses and replies due by July. (We explain Daubert motions in the September 1 update below.)

For Group B cases, fact discovery will extend through March 17, 2025, and the parties will submit expert exchange schedules for thyroid and ulcerative colitis claims by December 2024.

October 23, 2024:  New Navy Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a plaintiff from Boerne, Texas, is seeking damages in the MDL, alleging injury from exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) products manufactured by multiple companies, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont. The plaintiff claims that repeated exposure to AFFF during a U.S. Navy career led to a diagnosis of thyroid cancer and other serious health issues due to the deadly bioaccumulative and carcinogenic properties of PFAS compounds within the foam.

October 5, 2024 – Expert Deadline

Key deadlines are approaching in the PFAS litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will outline their experts’ opinions on the link between PFAS chemicals and cancer, providing detailed scientific evidence to support their claims. These initial reports, due on Tuesday, will be crucial in shaping the direction of the case.

Once submitted, these expert reports will face what is known as a Daubert challenge, where the defense will argue that the plaintiffs’ scientific testimony does not meet the required standards of reliability and relevance. If the judge finds the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence credible and sound, it can be admitted in court. In the unlikely even the defense successfully argues that the methodology is flawed or not widely accepted in the scientific community, the judge could limit or exclude the experts’ testimony altogether.

If the judge rules, as we expect, that the science supporting these claims is sound, it will significantly increase settlement pressure on the defense. We believe that the defendants will wisely avoid a trial and make a real settlement offer to resolve the majority of these claims before letting that happen.

September 19, 2024 – New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

September 1, 2024 – Daubert

Daubert challenges will be key in the AFFF firefighting foam litigation, and we should win them easily.  These motions focus on whether the scientific evidence presented by plaintiffs is admissible. These motions determine if expert testimony linking PFAS chemicals in AFFF to specific health conditions, such as cancer, meets the required standards of scientific reliability. Defendants will argue that the plaintiffs’ expert opinions are speculative or based on insufficient data, seeking to exclude these testimonies to weaken the plaintiffs’ case. Those Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases will be a tough argument for defendants and they might look foolish in front a jury if they push it too far.

One significant Daubert issue involves proving causation—specifically, whether exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF directly caused diseases like kidney, testicular, or prostate cancer. For example, in some earlier motions, defendants sought to dismiss expert testimony that connected PFAS exposure to contaminated water sources. However, courts have denied several such motions, allowing the plaintiffs’ causation experts to proceed. This likely foreshadows the rulings to come.

August 6, 2024 – New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

In a new AFFF lawsuit, Zub v. 3M Company et al., the plaintiff brings a wrongful death and survival action. Her husband, who worked as a firefighter and hazardous materials technician for Union County, New Jersey, was regularly exposed to aqueous film-forming foams during his career.

As a firefighter, he utilized AFFF in both training and emergency situations, unaware of the dangers posed by PFAS. The plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to these toxic substances led to her husband’s development of kidney cancer, ultimately resulting in his tragic death at the age of 35.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants knowingly designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, while failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding their safe use. The suit asserts that the defendants were aware of the hazardous nature of PFAS but concealed this information, preventing the decedent and others from recognizing the risks. This fraudulent concealment and negligence in product design and safety measures are central to the allegations.

July 22, 2024: Nine Bellwethers Picked

Judge Gergel selected nine out of eleven cases proposed by the plaintiffs for the list of cases to go to trial first. These cases involve Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis, all allegedly linked to exposure to aqueous film forming foam.

So in a big win for plaintiffs, the court mostly followed the path plaintiffs proposed in the July 17 update below.

The defendants had proposed a different set of eleven cases, emphasizing what they incorrectly claimed was a more representative pool in terms of gender, age, and exposure period.

July 17, 2024: New Strategy Aims To Reduce Burden On Court

Lawyers for victims have made a great proposal to push the AFFF lawsuits along. They suggest selecting kidney and testicular cancer cases from Pennsylvania and thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis cases from Colorado. This strategy aims to reduce the burden on the court and parties by focusing on specific sites and minimizing the number of required depositions, expert reports, and evidence.

To settle these lawsuits, we need as many trial dates as possible. The defendants will oppose this, but it will be transparent that they just want to stall moving forward with trials.

July 11, 2024: Former Georgia Firefighter Files AFFF Lawsuit

A new AFFF lawsuit was filed yesterday on behalf of a Georgia man who was diagnosed with kidney cancer.  He was a firefighter who served in the United States Navy at Memphis Naval Station in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1989 through 2023.

During his service, the plaintiff routinely used Class B foam and wore firefighting gear (turnouts) that contained PFAS-containing materials.  As a result of prolonged exposure to PFAS, the plaintiff has been diagnosed with kidney cancer and is currently receiving treatment for this condition. The lawsuit alleges that the use of PFAS-containing materials in firefighting activities led to his kidney cancer.

June 27, 2024: New Study Provides New Tool For AFFF Lawsuits

A new study helps us better understand how PFAS interact with human skin. The researchers utilized in vitro 3D human skin equivalent models to analyze the absorption of 17 different PFAS when applied to the skin. They found that shorter-chain PFAS had higher absorption rates and that absorption decreased with increasing carbon chain length of the compounds.

Notably, while longer-chain PFAS were not absorbed directly into the skin, a substantial portion of these chemicals was retained within the skin tissue, which could potentially be released into the body over time. The study also highlighted the influence of physicochemical properties on the dermal permeation of PFAS, showing a clear inverse correlation between the lipophilicity of the substances and their absorption through the skin.

For plaintiffs’ experts in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, this study provides a potent new tool. The detailed analysis of PFAS absorption through the skin confirms that dermal exposure to these chemicals can contribute significantly to the body burden of PFAS.

This is particularly relevant in cases where plaintiffs have been exposed to firefighting foams containing PFAS. It provides a scientifically supported pathway of exposure that can link PFAS-containing products directly to all of the problems these firefighters are having. This evidence strengthens claims that manufacturers like 3M should have known about and warned against the risks associated with dermal exposure to PFAS.

May 16, 2024: AFFF Lawyers Drill Down On Six Specific Conditions

Our AFFF lawyers are now drilling down on six specific conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease/hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.

May 7, 2024: Rough Outline Set Forth For Schedules And Procedures

CMO 26C directed the parties to devise a process for selecting plaintiffs for initial personal injury and wrongful death bellwether trials and preparing for those trials. Last night, the parties set forth a rough outline of the procedures and schedules for selecting and managing two groups of plaintiffs from a pool of 25 alleging four types of injuries:

1. kidney cancer
2. testicular cancer
3. thyroid disease
4. ulcerative colitis.

It sets forth a staggered schedule for discovery, expert testimony, motion practice, and trial preparations for these groups, aiming to efficiently handle the complex issues and extensive negotiations involved in the litigation.

Here is the schedule:

May 6, 2024: CMO Proposal Submission Deadline Arrives 

 Today is the new deadline for AFFF foam lawyers on both sides to submit their proposals for a Case Management Order regarding Tier 2 Personal Injury Bellwether proceedings. This follows two granted extensions from the original deadlines.

A lot of people are eager to see which diseases will make it into Tier 2.

March 21, 2024: New CMO Outlines Path To Science Day

 New CMO #28 sets a schedule for both parties to identify and share scientific studies related to AFFF diseases other than those in the contaminated water lawsuits and a path to a Science Day.

What would an AFFF Science Day look like?  A “Science Day” in the context of firefighting foam cancer lawsuits is an educational briefing for the MDL judge. This non-trial, non-hearing event is designed to elucidate the scientific and medical principles relevant to the litigation, which consolidates numerous lawsuits alleging that exposure to certain chemicals in firefighting foam caused cancer among firefighters and others.

During Science Day, experts from both parties are heard on topics such as the foam’s chemical composition, its potential carcinogenic effects, epidemiological studies, and other scientific evidence related to the case.

The purpose is to equip the judge with a solid understanding of the complex scientific matters that underpin the litigation, aiding in informed decision-making regarding expert testimony and other science-related legal issues.

So first, the plaintiffs must list the diseases they assert are linked to exposure. Following this, a series of deadlines have been established for both parties to exchange peer-reviewed articles supporting or disputing the associations between these diseases and the substance. The process culminates in a science day.

The CMO also discusses the selection of bellwether cases, setting a deadline of 60 days post-Science Day to propose how these representative cases will be chosen, guided by previous court directives.

The take-home message of all of this?  We are not getting AFFF lawsuit trial dates in 2024.

March 6, 2024: Court Focuses More On Turnout Gear Claims

We have not talked much about the turnout gear PFAS claims.  As the court becomes more focused on these claims, let’s take a closer look.

The case against the manufacturers of turnout gear involves allegations that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are chemicals used in the manufacturing of the protective clothing worn by firefighters, has led to various health issues, including cancer and other illnesses.

Firefighter turnout gear, also known as protective gear, is designed to shield firefighters from heat, flames, and chemical exposure during firefighting operations. So plaintiffs contend that the turnout gear, which contains PFAS, has exposed them to harmful chemicals, leading to adverse health effects such as cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, and other injuries.

A new court order, Case Management Order No. 5F, establishes procedures for the creation, submission, and management of Plaintiff Fact Sheets specific to cases involving claims related to firefighter turnout gear.

The order mandates the creation of a specific Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) tailored for cases involving claims against manufacturers of firefighter turnout gear. This is a new requirement for plaintiffs who are making these claims to fill out this fact sheet.

February 26, 2024: Former Nevada Firefighter Joins MDL

A new firefighting foam lawsuit was transferred into the MDL last week.  A Nevada man who was a state-certified firefighter was exposed to AFFF from 1992 to 1997.  He was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2021.  His AFFF lawsuit, filed in Nevada state court, has been removed to the MDL.

February 25, 2024: New Research Links Elevated PFAS Levels To Diets

New research indicates that diets high in processed meats, butter, and other foods could contribute to elevated levels of PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” in the bloodstream over time. The study highlights a variety of food items, including teas, pork, candy, sports drinks, chips, and bottled water, as potential contributors to increased PFAS levels. Additionally, it was observed that individuals consuming more takeout or restaurant-prepared food tend to have higher PFAS blood levels.

February 16, 2024: Plaintiff’s Lawyers and BASF Enter Into Tolling Agreement

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and BASF entered into a tolling agreement this week in nine AFFF cases.

What is a tolling agreement?  A tolling agreement is a legal arrangement where parties agree to suspend or extend the statute of limitations on a claim, essentially pausing the countdown that limits the time to bring a lawsuit. In the context of an MDL, tolling agreements are often used to streamline pretrial proceedings by allowing parties to focus on negotiations or settlement discussions without the pressure of impending deadlines, ensuring that claims are not dismissed due to the expiration of statutory time limits while the MDL process is ongoing.

December 6, 2023: Judge Gergel Takes Closer Look At AFFF Lawsuit Illnesses 

Judge Gergel is taking a closer look at the current inventory of AFFF lawsuits, looking to figure out where this litigation is going and what the scope of the cancers attributable to firefighting foam will ultimately be. The majority of these personal injury and wrongful death claims in the AFFF class action lawsuit are related to illnesses beyond the four conditions currently under the court’s review: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

To assess the legitimacy of these additional cases, Judge Gergel has directed several actions to be completed within 60 days, including cataloging all plaintiff cases alleging diseases other than the four specified, submitting all peer-reviewed scientific studies regarding the association with other diseases, and planning a ‘science day’ for experts to debate the purported links between these other diseases and exposure to AFFF-contaminated water.

November 28, 2023: Three “Suggestion Of Death” Notices Filed In AFFF MDL

Water contamination lawsuits have frustratingly dominated the AFFF class action docket over the last few weeks. Highlighting the severe consequences of delay, three “Suggestion of Death” notices were filed in the MDL, indicating that three plaintiffs have passed away while awaiting justice.

A “Suggestion of Death” notice in a lawsuit is a formal legal notification that informs the court and other parties involved in the litigation that a party to the lawsuit has passed away. The notice of death triggers the process of substituting the deceased party with an appropriate representative, usually the executor, personal representative, or administrator of the deceased’s estate and their surviving family members, converting the lawsuit to a survival action and/or wrongful death lawsuit.

The question of when will AFFF lawsuits be settled remains uncertain, although we are hoping for trials in 2025. [Update October 2025.]  But it really is tragic that many victims will not live to see justice for what happened to them.

October 24, 2023: New Study Finds Link Between PFOS And Thyroid Cancer

Individuals with elevated concentrations of a particular PFAS, called linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have a heightened likelihood of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, as indicated by a study soon to be released in eBioMedicine, a publication of the Lancet. This research found a 56% increased risk of thyroid cancer among those with higher levels of linear PFOS.

October 5, 2023: New Study Provides Strong Link Between AFFF And Testicular Cancer

This study is the strongest proof yet of the link between testicular cancer and AFFF. We had plenty of evidence already, though. This is like shooting a person who has already been shot five times.

August 20, 2023: Recent Study Links AFFF To Testicular Cancer

A recent study confirms what AFFF lawyers getting calls from victims have long understood: AFFF may elevate the risk of testicular cancer.

August 18, 2023: Former Air Force Firefighter Joins AFFF MDL

A new AFFF lawsuit, Jones v. 3M, et al., was directly filed last week in the AFFF MDL in South Carolina against the usual cast of characters.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old Texas man, was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter with the Air Force. He alleges that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer from AFFF exposure, which has caused him to undergo a prostatectomy. His lawsuit seeks compensation for his pain, suffering, and other damages.

Most of our military AFFF lawsuits are from the Navy, but we see Army and Air Force cases as well.

August 1, 2023: Judge Grants Unopposed Motion To Substitute Plaintiff 

Judge Gergel granted an unopposed motion to substitute plaintiffs after an Alabama plaintiff died.  The man’s daughter is now the plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit.  It is a stark reminder that many plaintiffs in this litigation may never see their settlements.

June 5, 2023: Joint Motion To Delay Trial Granted

Yesterday, the Plaintiff Leadership Committee in the AFFF class action lawsuit and 3M, the biggest defendant, filed a joint motion to delay the trial slated to begin today. The one-page motion says that the parties are engaged in negotiations and are close to resolution, and the attorneys believe that devoting their efforts toward settlement, as opposed to proceeding with trial preparations, is the most advisable course of action. This morning, the MDL Judge granted the motion and gave the parties a 3-week postponement of the trial date. This development follows the recent speculation of a 3M’s offer worth $10 billion to settle the claims made by the municipalities.

This is all well and good for what the municipality claims.  Our focus is on individual victims, and taking a trial to a verdict might be the best thing for those victims who have suffered from AFFF.  But the hope is that payouts in the municipalities’ lawsuits will lead to individual AFFF settlements for firefighters and others suffering from exposure to PFAS.

June 2, 2023: Three Leading Companies To Create Billion Dollar Settlement Fund

Three leading companies, The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, and Corteva, have reached a preliminary agreement to address PFAS-related drinking water claims involving public water systems. Together, they will create a $1.185 billion settlement fund, which will be divided based on their agreed contributions. The settlement is pending the final approval of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The deal excludes specific water systems.

May 28, 2023: Environmental Working Group Estimates $30 Billion PFAS Clean Up

A new report from the Environmental Working Group estimates that it will likely cost over $30 billion for the U.S. government to fully clean up the PFAS contamination around over 50 military bases after years of using AFFF firefighting foam during training exercises. If not addressed, the PFAS contamination at these military installations could pollute local water supply systems. So far, however, the Department of Defense has only allocated $1.4 billion to cover the cleanup costs.

May 24, 2023: EPA’s Proposed PFAS Limits To Be Admitted As Evidence 

The EPA’s proposed limits on PFAS in drinking water will be admitted as evidence in the first trial of the AFFF lawsuit brought by the City of Stuart, Florida. The defendants unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the inclusion of the EPA’s limits, which they argue are provisional and not indicative of the knowledge gained during the production period. This is strong evidence for the jury and increases the likelihood that the first lawsuit to go forward with this class action will result in a successful verdict for the plaintiff.l.

March 7, 2023: Former Marine Files AFFF Lawsuit

A new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed this month.  In Kent v. 3M, the plaintiff is a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas, man.  He was exposed to fluorochemical products while serving as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps. This exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy.  His firefighting foam lawsuit alleges he suffered personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the result of his exposure to fluorochemical products.

Plaintiff attorneys filed this complaint in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3, issued by Judge Richard M. Gergel.  Judge Gergel is the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, which houses all federal AFFF suits.  Under this order, the plaintiff designated the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case. His AFFF 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.

February 3, 2023: Information on Statute Of Limitations

Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitations 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 critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit. What is the discovery rule?  It is an exception to the statute of limitations that delays its running until the plaintiff knows, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known, of both the injury and its cause. 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 2024 when they absolutely do.

January 12, 2023: Occupational Medicine Reports Firefighters 60% More Likely To Die Of Cancer

A new study in the journal Occupational Medicine reports that firefighters are 60% more likely to die of cancer than the general population. The death rate for prostate cancer was four times higher, leukemia was three times higher, and kidney cancer was double the rate in the overall population. The researchers made the obvious point that carcinogenic chemicals in AFFF may be a primary contributing factor.

November 1, 2022: Retired Judge Layn Phillips Appointed Settlement Mediator

With the first bellwether trial set for 2024, a court-appointed settlement mediator has now been assigned to “facilitate and encourage” global settlement discussions between both sides. The mediator, retired judge Layn Phillips, will face a complex task given that the AFFF litigation involves cancer claims by individual firefighters and claims by local municipalities for contamination of the water supply.

An AFFF settlement will be a Herculean task because of the different types of claims—some are individual, and some are entire communities.  Additional defendants will also have different views of what an appropriate AFFF settlement should look like.  But there is the possibility of some AFFF settlements from this effort, which would be in everyone’s best interest. Let’s see how these AFFF settlement talks go.  The water contamination cases are likely to settle first. Why? Because those cases have the first trial date.

Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Class Action Lawsuit

Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is used to extinguish fires and is commonly referred to as firefighting foam. It was recently discovered that prolonged use or exposure to certain chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can cause cancer. Anyone regularly exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently diagnosed with kidney, pancreatic, prostate, or testicular cancer may be able to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit and get financial compensation.

All AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits in federal courts have been consolidated into a “class action” MDL in the District of South Carolina. As of August 2022, over 2,500 plaintiffs with firefighting foam cancer lawsuits are pending in the AFFF MDL. After bellwether test trials, the AFFF class action MDL will hopefully end in a global settlement.

AFFF Firefighting Foam Causes Cancer

AFFF (“aqueous film-forming foam”) is a sprayable foam specifically designed to extinguish high-intensity fires fueled by accelerants such as gasoline. The active chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam belong to a family of chemicals known as PFAS (poly-fluoroalkyl substances).

PFAS are a unique group of chemicals that are highly resistant to extreme heat and are not broken down by oil or water. Unfortunately, their indestructible nature means that they do not biodegrade or break down in the environment. These substances are marked by several extraordinarily robust and enduring carbon-fluorine bonds. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals”  because of their remarkable persistence in the environment and strong resistance to both metabolic and environmental degradation.

Over the last decade, an emerging body of scientific research has established that chronic exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can cause certain types of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency published a health advisory in 2016 noting that animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to PFAS resulted in kidney and testicular cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducted several studies that found that human exposure to PFAS results in a significantly increased kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer rate.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society have reached the same conclusion, listing the chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam as human carcinogens.

Exposure to AFFF Firefighting Foam and PFAS

Anyone regularly exposed to AFFF firefighting foam over long periods is potentially at risk of developing cancer from PFAS. Chronic exposure to PFAS in AFFF firefighting foam can occur in two ways: (1) occupational exposure to AFFF and (2) PFAS contamination in drinking water.

Occupational AFFF Exposure

Individuals who worked in specific jobs or professions where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used (either by themselves directly or by people around them) have what is considered “occupational exposure” to PFAS from firefighting foam.

Firefighters who regularly used AFFF or conducted training exercises with AFFF firefighting foam are the most prominent examples of individuals with occupational exposure and represent most of the victims in the AFFF class action lawsuit.

Since the late 1960s or early 1970s, the U.S. military has deployed MilSpec AFFF at military bases, airfields, and Navy vessels. These are places where fuel fires are not just possible but likely and potentially catastrophic. The military uses this substance to train its personnel, extinguish fires, save lives, and safeguard property. Still, the people using these products did not know they were being exposed to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals present in AFFF.

Beyond the military, other individuals who might have had occupational exposure to AFFF firefighting foam include those working in environments where AFFF was used extensively, disposed of, or even produced. For instance, commercial airports, where fuel fires are a common risk, frequently use firefighting foam during safety and emergency response training exercises. Similarly, industrial facilities, especially those dealing with flammable substances, also regularly use AFFF as part of their fire safety protocols.

• Our lawyers are seeing a lot of Navy AFFF lawsuits

Groundwater PFAS Exposure

The other category of people with chronic exposure to PFAS from AFFF firefighting foam would be individuals who consumed drinking water contaminated with PFAS. Hundreds and possibly thousands, of residential areas across the country had groundwater highly contaminated with PFAS from firefighting foam.

Many residential locations with groundwater contaminated by PFAS are near military bases or airports where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used. The PFAS in the firefighting foam eventually seeped through the soil and entered the water table.

Cancers Caused by AFFF Firefighting Foam

Scientific research has determined that chronic exposure to AFFF firefighting foam (both occupational exposure and groundwater contamination exposure) can cause increased rates of specific types of cancer. The types of cancer that have been linked to AFFF exposure include:

• Kidney cancer
• Bladder cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Breast Cancer
• Leukemia (and other blood cancers)
• Prostate cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

How Many Plaintiffs Are in the AFFF Class Action Lawsuit?

As of March 2025, there are nearly 10,000 pending lawsuits in the AFFF (firefighting foam) class action MDL-2873.

These lawsuits consist of both municipal water contamination cases and individual personal injury claims, with many of the latter brought by former firefighters who allege they developed cancer due to exposure to AFFF. While the exact number of cases in each category has not been specifically tracked, the majority of the current lawsuits involve personal injury or wrongful death claims related to firefighting foam exposure.

Who Are the Defendants in AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits?

The defendants named in the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are companies that manufactured and sold AFFF products. Firefighting foam has been manufactured and sold by a variety of different companies. DuPont and 3M were two of the biggest manufacturers of AFFF firefighting foam and are vital defendants in the current AFFF lawsuits.

Evidence has been uncovered that by the 1970s, manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and others were already very aware that the PFAS in their AFFF products were potentially toxic to the environment. Moreover, these companies became aware in the 1990s that these chemicals were harmful to humans and that long-term exposure might be linked to cancer.

Settlement Amounts for AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits

The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits will eventually be resolved in a mass tort global settlement. In these types of settlements, the defendants contribute a large sum of money into a settlement fund to pay settlement awards to individual plaintiffs who agree to accept the settlement.

The amount of settlement compensation received by individual plaintiffs is based on a tiered ranking system. Plaintiffs with the most robust AFFF cancer cases are ranked in the top tier and receive the highest settlement payouts. Plaintiffs with weaker claims are ranked in lower tiers and receive less compensation.

In the AFFF lawsuits, the top settlement tier will probably be for plaintiffs with long-term occupational exposure to AFFF and diagnosis with one of the more dangerous cancer types that have been linked to AFFF (e.g., prostate, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and ulcerative colitis). AFFF plaintiffs in lower settlement tiers would include people with less occupational exposure or a diagnosis of less severe types of cancer.  We think the cancer cases will have the highest settlement values.

Based on settlement payouts in prior mass tort cases involving cancer, our lawyers predict that AFFF firefighting foam cases in the top settlement tier will have average settlement amounts of $300,000 to $600,000. Our estimated value for second-tier cases is $150,000 to $280,000. In some cases, the third tier may end up with settlement payouts of $75,000 or less.

It is important to remember that these are predictions, not guaranteed future AFFF settlement ranges for individual claims.  We try hard to make the best settlement predictions that we can. But anyone who thinks they know when and how much AFFF settlements will be is kidding themselves.

Hopefully, we will know what the AFFF settlement offers will look like sooner rather than later. There is speculation of a settlement, at least with some of the defendants, in the first half of 2025.

AFFF Firefighting Foam Class Action Lawyers

Many people exposed to AFFF file lawsuits against the companies that made the foam. The lawsuits claim that the companies knew about the health risks but continued to sell the foam anyway. The lawsuits argue that the companies should be held responsible for the harm that AFFF has caused.

Our law firm is currently accepting new AFFF firefighting foam cases in all 50 states. Every case has a potential statute of limitations issue. So act now. Contact our AFFF class action lawyers today to get your case started. Call 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.