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.