• February 5, 2025: MDL Sees Surge in New Cases

    Published On: February 16, 2025|Categories: AFFF|By |

    Following a temporary dip, lawsuits related to AFFF firefighting foam are once again increasing. In October and November 2023, the number of active cases in the MDL declined, primarily due to settlements in water contamination claims leading to dismissals. However, this downturn was short-lived.

    By December, 270 fresh cases had been filed, and in January, the momentum picked up even more, with an additional 459 lawsuits pushing the total number of pending cases to 8,092.

    What’s behind this rise? Speculation about settlements. When discussions of a global settlement emerge, legal teams act swiftly to file claims before any deadlines are set. If a settlement agreement is finalized, there’s often a strict timeframe for inclusion, and delaying too long could result in losing eligibility for compensation.

    For individuals impacted by PFAS exposure, this influx of filings suggests that the window for legal action may be closing. Many attorneys are advising affected individuals to take prompt legal steps to ensure their case is part of any forthcoming resolution.

    Our legal team continues to receive new AFFF-related inquiries every day, though the number of filings fluctuates. Since AFFF lawsuits are frequently filed in groups, this sometimes creates variations in case numbers.

  • January 28, 2025 – Fear of Punitive Damages May Drive AFFF Settlement Amounts

    Published On: February 16, 2025|Categories: AFFF|By |

    Punitive damages are expected to play a major role in increasing settlement amounts in AFFF lawsuits and may be a crucial factor in compelling defendants to reach settlements before the first personal injury trial takes place this year.

    The primary purpose of punitive damages is to penalize defendants for severe misconduct and to discourage similar actions in the future. In the AFFF litigation, plaintiffs argue that manufacturers such as 3M and DuPont not only neglected to inform the public about the hazardous effects of AFFF foam but also deliberately hid evidence of its harmful nature for decades. This intentional and reckless behavior is exactly what punitive damages seek to address. When juries see that corporations prioritized profits over public safety, they may issue substantial financial penalties that far exceed compensatory damages, significantly increasing the financial risk for defendants.

    The firefighting foam lawsuits are strongly positioned for punitive damages. Internal records indicate that companies were aware of the dangers associated with PFAS chemicals as early as the 1960s but failed to alert workers, firefighters, and affected communities. Given the high-risk nature of these cases, defendants may be inclined to settle rather than face unpredictable and potentially massive jury verdicts. Plaintiffs filing claims for personal injury, property damage, or environmental contamination could see significant financial recoveries, as settlement discussions factor in not only their individual losses but also the extent of the manufacturers’ negligence.

  • January 23, 2025: New York Firefighter Lawsuit

    Published On: February 16, 2025|Categories: AFFF|By |

    A new lawsuit related to AFFF firefighting foam was recently filed, highlighting the severe health effects suffered by a retired firefighter who dedicated over 30 years to the Yonkers Fire Department in New York.

    Throughout his career, he was consistently exposed to hazardous chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which were present in firefighting foam (AFFF) and protective gear. These exposures occurred during emergency fire responses, training drills, and routine maintenance tasks, including major incidents like the 1996 Con Edison substation fire. Despite manufacturer assurances regarding safety, PFAS chemicals have been scientifically linked to serious health risks, including thyroid disease, which the firefighter was diagnosed with in 2019. His diagnosis has led to ongoing pain, suffering, and financial hardship, significantly impacting his well-being.

    Additionally, his spouse has endured emotional distress and loss of companionship due to his condition and is pursuing legal action for loss of consortium. The lawsuit argues that several corporations, including major chemical manufacturers, negligently produced and sold PFAS-containing products without adequately warning users about the risks—despite long-standing evidence connecting PFAS exposure to serious health complications. The plaintiffs are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages to hold these companies accountable for their alleged negligence toward public safety.

  • Insurance Battles Heat Up in AFFF Lawsuits

    Published On: November 24, 2024|Categories: AFFF|By |

    Insurance disputes are becoming a major issue in the ongoing AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL). A recent decision in South Carolina highlighted this struggle, with corporate defendants like BASF fighting their insurers over who should pay for legal defense and settlements. The judge dismissed one case involving BASF and sent another back to New York for further action.

  • New Navy Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Filed

    Published On: October 23, 2024|Categories: AFFF|By |

    A former U.S. Navy service member from Boerne, Texas, has filed a lawsuit in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL), seeking damages for health issues linked to firefighting foam exposure. The lawsuit names multiple manufacturers, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont, alleging that their PFAS-containing AFFF products caused the plaintiff’s thyroid cancer and other severe health problems.

    The plaintiff claims repeated exposure to the foam during their Navy career led to harmful effects due to PFAS’s bioaccumulative and cancer-causing properties. This case adds to the growing legal pressure on AFFF manufacturers to address the health risks of their products.

  • New Case Management Order on Witnesses

    Published On: September 11, 2024|Categories: AFFF|By |

    A new case management order has been issued to organize witness depositions for the upcoming Tier Two Personal Injury Bellwether Trials. The key issue is that not all potential witnesses were deposed during the earlier fact discovery phase, meaning their testimony has not yet been collected.

    According to the order, if either party adds a new witness to their trial list who wasn’t previously deposed, the other party has the right to request a deposition of that witness. This request must be made within 14 days of receiving the updated witness list.