PFAS Settlement Calculator 2026: What Has Actually Been Paid
Use the PFAS settlement calculator to organize potential personal-injury claim factors involving AFFF firefighting foam or PFAS-contaminated water, including exposure source, diagnosis, treatment, economic losses, evidence strength, defendants and filing considerations.
- Separates personal-injury claims from public-water-system settlements.
- Uses the latest August JPML count and July 30 court orders.
- Distinguishes conditions discussed in health research from conditions being litigated.
- Links into the current PFAS lawsuit, AFFF, settlement-amount and update hierarchy.
- Explains why a PFAS blood test can document body burden but cannot identify exposure source or prove causation by itself.
Get Your Free PFAS Claim Estimate
Answer questions about AFFF or contaminated-water exposure, diagnosis, treatment, financial losses and supporting evidence.
PFAS / AFFF MDL 2873 Status in August 2026
In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. The MDL includes personal-injury, medical-monitoring, property, public-water-system and other PFAS-related claims.
15,246 Pending Actions
The August 3, 2026 JPML report lists 15,246 actions pending and 19,822 historical actions associated with MDL 2873.
Group B Deadline Moved
CMO 26O, entered July 30, moved the Group B selection and expert-discovery proposal deadline from July 20 to November 20, 2026. The order addresses thyroid-disease and ulcerative-colitis bellwether plaintiffs.
Rule 702 Briefing
CMO 33E sets August 24, 2026 for Rule 702 motions concerning general-causation experts related to thyroid cancer and/or liver cancer, followed by October 8 responses and November 2 replies.
Who May Need a PFAS or AFFF Lawsuit Review?
Potential personal-injury claims are fact-specific. A useful review generally looks at how exposure occurred, which PFAS or products may be involved, the diagnosis, latency, medical evidence, defendant identification, damages and governing law.
Facts That May Support Closer Review
- Documented occupational, military, airport, firefighting, industrial or contaminated-water exposure
- Kidney or testicular cancer with a plausible PFOA/PFAS exposure history
- Another serious diagnosis currently being evaluated in the litigation or supported by relevant scientific evidence
- Medical records showing diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and a consistent timeline
- AFFF, employer, military-base, water-system, location or contamination records supporting exposure
- Medical bills, lost earnings, disability or other documented damages
Claims Requiring More Individual Review
- Exposure is suspected but source, product, location or dates are uncertain
- A PFAS blood test exists without evidence identifying the source or timing of exposure
- The diagnosis has limited or disputed evidence for the particular PFAS and exposure level
- There is exposure but no diagnosed injury or legally recognized damages
- The potential statute of limitation, statute of repose or notice deadline is uncertain
- Multiple environmental or occupational exposures complicate causation
PFAS Settlements on Record: Who Has Actually Been Paid
PFAS litigation has produced billions in approved settlements and no personal injury settlement in the AFFF cases at all. Those two facts sit side by side and are constantly merged. What follows separates them, with each figure attached to the order or filing it came from.
Approved, and none of it reaches individuals
Four approvedFour settlements with public water systems have received final approval in MDL 2873: 3M at $10.5–12.5 billion nominal payable 2024–2036 (approved 29 March 2024), DuPont, Chemours and Corteva at $1.185 billion (approved 8 February 2024), Tyco Fire Products at $750 million and BASF at $316.5 million (both approved 22 November 2024). This money funds water treatment for utilities. It does not compensate people.
3M final approval order; DuPont final approval order.No AFFF settlement exists
NoneNo personal injury settlement has been reached in the AFFF litigation. 3M records no accrual for personal injury claims. The first personal-injury bellwether trial was vacated in August 2025 and no new trial date has been set. The JPML report of 1 September 2026 counts 15,264 actions pending before Judge Richard M. Gergel in South Carolina.
3M quarterly filing; JPML pending-MDL report.C-8 — a different litigation
$670.7 millionIn 2017 DuPont and Chemours resolved approximately 3,500 personal injury lawsuits over PFOA contamination from the Washington Works plant, for $670.7 million in cash split evenly between them. A follow-up of exactly $83 million resolved about 95 further cases in January 2021. That was MDL 2433 in southern Ohio — a separate litigation from AFFF, and the reason it is wrong to say no PFAS personal injury settlement has ever occurred.
Chemours’ 8-K, February 2017.One, and it is final
$40 millionA jury awarded Travis Abbott $40 million against DuPont in the C-8 litigation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the award on 5 December 2022 and the Supreme Court denied review on 20 November 2023, so the judgment is final rather than pending appeal — a distinction often lost in coverage.
Sixth Circuit opinion; Supreme Court docket 23-13.Water Settlements and Personal Injury Claims Are Not the Same Thing
Almost every confusing claim about PFAS compensation comes from one conflation: treating the water utility settlements as though they were personal injury settlements. They are not the same litigation outcome, they pay different parties, and only one of them has actually happened. The four approved settlements in MDL 2873 — 3M, DuPont with Chemours and Corteva, Tyco and BASF — resolve claims brought by public water systems for the cost of detecting and removing PFAS from drinking water. The money funds treatment infrastructure. It is paid to utilities, and no part of it is allocated to individuals who drank the water.
The personal injury side of the AFFF litigation has produced no settlement at all. 3M records no accrual for personal injury claims in its financial filings. The first personal-injury bellwether was vacated in August 2025 and no replacement trial date has been set, while thousands of further plaintiffs have filed since. The claim pool is built around kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, and until a bellwether is tried or a settlement is announced there is no figure to report — which is why this page publishes none.
There is one genuine PFAS personal injury settlement, and it belongs to a different case. In February 2017 DuPont and Chemours agreed to pay $670.7 million in cash, split evenly, to resolve roughly 3,500 lawsuits brought by people exposed to PFOA released from the Washington Works plant in West Virginia. A further $83 million resolved about 95 remaining cases in January 2021. That litigation was MDL 2433 in the Southern District of Ohio. It matters here for two reasons: it shows that PFAS personal injury claims can and do settle, and it means the blanket statement that no PFAS personal injury settlement has ever occurred is wrong.
The same litigation produced the only PFAS personal injury verdict that is fully final. Travis Abbott was awarded $40 million against DuPont; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on 5 December 2022 and the Supreme Court denied review on 20 November 2023. Coverage frequently describes it as being on appeal, which has not been true for nearly three years. A verdict that has survived certiorari is a materially different fact from one still working through the courts, and it is the closest thing to a benchmark this area has.
For anyone assessing exposure, the practical distinction is which route applies. Water contamination claims, occupational firefighting foam exposure and manufacturing-plant releases follow different evidence paths and different defendants. Our PFAS settlement amounts guide covers the water settlements in more detail, and the AFFF litigation guide covers the occupational exposure track and its current status.
3M and DuPont-Family Water Settlements Are Not Individual Cancer Payouts
Large public-water-system settlements are important PFAS litigation milestones, but they resolve defined drinking-water-provider claims rather than creating automatic compensation for individual personal-injury claimants.
3M Public Water Systems
3M’s 2025 Form 10-K states that its public-water-system settlement, approved in 2024, calls for total payments of approximately $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion, with payments extending through 2036.
Chemours / DuPont / Corteva
The companies announced a $1.185 billion fund to resolve defined PFAS-related drinking-water claims of a class of U.S. public water systems.
PFAS Health Associations: What Federal Health Agencies Actually Say
ATSDR states that epidemiological evidence suggests associations between increases in exposure to specific PFAS and several health effects. For PFOA, ATSDR identifies evidence of an association with kidney and testicular cancer. Its clinician guidance also notes sufficient evidence of an association for kidney cancer and limited or suggestive evidence for testicular cancer under the National Academies framework.
EPA’s current PFAS health-risk page lists an increased risk of some cancers—including prostate, kidney and testicular cancers—among health effects that may occur with exposure to certain levels of PFAS. Research remains ongoing, and the strength of evidence differs by compound, disease and exposure history.
Evidence Attorneys May Review in a PFAS Claim
- Military, airport, firefighting or industrial work history
- AFFF use, training, purchasing or incident records
- Water-system test results and contamination notices
- Addresses and dates near potential PFAS sources
- PFAS blood-test results, when available
- Pathology, imaging and specialist records
- Diagnosis and treatment dates
- Surgery, chemotherapy or other treatment records
- Medical bills and out-of-pocket expenses
- Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
- Disability and caregiving documentation
- Product, manufacturer or location evidence
6 Factors That Can Affect PFAS Claim Value
1. Exposure Pathway
Direct AFFF use, occupational contact, contaminated drinking water, location evidence and duration can affect proof.
2. Diagnosis
Cancer type or other disease, stage, severity and competing risk factors can affect both causation and damages.
3. Treatment & Prognosis
Surgery, chemotherapy, hospitalization, recurrence, permanent impairment and future care can affect damages.
4. Economic Loss
Medical costs, lost earnings, reduced earning capacity, travel, caregiving and household-service loss may be relevant.
5. Product & Location Proof
Records identifying AFFF products, manufacturers, worksites, water systems and contamination sources can be critical.
6. Law & Defenses
Jurisdiction, limitations, repose, defendant-specific defenses and federal MDL orders can materially affect viability and value.
PFAS Lawsuit Filing Deadlines Vary by Claim and State
There is no single nationwide deadline for every PFAS or AFFF personal-injury claim. Time limits can depend on state law, diagnosis, discovery, exposure, defendant, claim type, statutes of repose, government-notice rules and MDL orders.
PFAS, AFFF, Settlement & Litigation Resources
This page now links to the current PFAS lawsuit and settlement destinations instead of the older slugs in the uploaded version.
PFAS Settlement Calculator FAQ
Is the PFAS settlement calculator an exact prediction?
No. It is an educational estimate based on limited inputs and cannot account for every medical record, expert opinion, defense, jurisdictional rule, filing deadline or future court development.
What is the average PFAS personal-injury settlement in 2026?
No official court-approved average or nationwide personal-injury payout matrix has been announced. Public-water-system settlements should not be treated as individual cancer payouts.
How many AFFF MDL cases are pending?
The August 3, 2026 JPML report lists 15,246 pending actions and 19,822 historical actions for MDL 2873.
What happened to the July 20 Group B deadline?
CMO 26O moved the selection and expert-discovery proposal deadline to November 20, 2026.
Is a PFAS blood test required?
Requirements depend on the claim and legal strategy. ATSDR explains that blood testing has significant limits and does not identify a disease, exposure source or exposure date by itself.
Do I have to request attorney contact to use the calculator?
No. The educational estimate and any request for attorney or expert contact should remain separate. Optional contact consent should remain unchecked by default.
Request a Confidential PFAS / AFFF Claim Review
If you have documented AFFF or PFAS-contaminated-water exposure and a serious diagnosis, use the calculator to organize the facts or request a confidential screening.
Where These Figures Come From
Every figure on this page comes from a primary record: final approval orders entered by Judge Richard M. Gergel in MDL 2873, company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal appellate opinions and Supreme Court docket entries, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s pending-case report dated 1 September 2026.
We publish no estimated payout or tier for PFAS or AFFF personal injury claims, because no such settlement exists to derive one from. We also keep two things separate that are widely merged: settlements paid to public water systems, which compensate utilities for treatment costs, and personal injury claims, which have produced one settlement in a different litigation (C-8, MDL 2433) and none in AFFF. Where a figure is a nominal total payable over a decade rather than a lump sum, we say so.
PFAS Litigation, Health & Settlement Sources
JPML — August 3, 2026 Pending MDL Report
Official source for the 15,246 pending / 19,822 historical MDL 2873 action count.
Open JPML report →U.S. District Court — MDL 2873
Official District of South Carolina AFFF multidistrict-litigation page before Judge Richard M. Gergel.
Open MDL 2873 page →CMO 26O — Group B Schedule
July 30, 2026 order moving Group B selection and expert-discovery proposals to November 20, 2026.
Open CMO 26O →CMO 33E — Rule 702 Schedule
July 30, 2026 order setting the thyroid/liver-cancer expert-motion schedule beginning August 24, 2026.
Open CMO 33E →ATSDR — PFAS Health Effects
Federal health-agency summary of epidemiological associations involving specific PFAS and health outcomes.
Open ATSDR health source →ATSDR — PFAS Blood Testing
Federal guidance explaining what PFAS blood tests can and cannot establish.
Open ATSDR testing source →EPA — Current PFAS Health-Risk Understanding
Current EPA summary of health effects associated with exposure to certain levels of PFAS.
Open EPA PFAS source →3M SEC Filing — Public-Water Settlement
3M’s 2025 Form 10-K describes the approved public-water-system settlement and expected total payments.
Open 3M SEC filing →DuPont / Chemours / Corteva Water Settlement
Company announcement describing the $1.185 billion defined public-water-system settlement fund.
Open settlement announcement →
