AFFF Lawsuit

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) is used as a fire suppressant to put out Class B fires.

Water alone isn’t enough to extinguish fires caused by some flammable liquids like gasoline or oil.

To assist in snuffing out these kinds of blazes, firefighters have for decades now been using AFFF because it covers the liquid flame in a film and smothers the fire.

The film essentially acts as an obstruction that hinders oxygen from getting into contact with the flammable liquid, stopping any chance of reignition.

AFFF firefighting foam has been used in both training exercises and actual fires across various organizations.

Sadly, most of the chemical compounds in AFFF can accumulate inside the body as time passes and negatively affect human health – increasing the chances of a cancer diagnosis or other serious health risks.

You Deserve Compensation for AFFF Firefighting Foam Exposure

AFFF consists of several toxic chemicals, and prolonged exposure to these firefighting foam chemicals significantly increases your chances of developing an array of serious, deadly ailments, including cancer. If you or somebody close to you has been diagnosed with any form of cancer or illness after being exposed to AFFF firefighting foam, you can pursue reimbursement for damages suffered.

Get in touch with us now to find out how our AFFF lawsuit attorneys can assist you file your personal injury claim against negligent manufacturers. When you enlist us, you can expect personalized guidance, client-based legal support, and aggressive advocacy throughout the legal proceedings.

Contact us today at 1-866-CALL-RSD to book a FREE, no-obligation initial consultation and case review!

AFFF Lawsuit Updates

Below, you will find updates on the Firefighting Foam lawsuits broken down by year and month.

2023 AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Updates

April 2024 – In recent updates concerning the class action Multi-District Litigation (MDL) involving AFFF firefighting foam, a significant influx of new cases was recorded last month, totaling 568. This marks the largest single-month increase in over a year, bringing the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 7,738.

Separately, in related news outside of the MDL, a legal development in Massachusetts has unfolded where a judge has allowed the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to proceed with its lawsuit against the National Fire Protection Association Inc. (NFPA). The NFPA is known for its role in developing standards and codes for fire safety.

March 2024 – 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 a 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 60 days post-Science Day to propose how these representative cases will be chosen, guided by previous court directives.

March 2024 – Despite the settlement deal that resolved most of the water contamination cases last Summer, the AFFF class action MDL remains very hot. Last month, 176 new cases were added to the MDL, pushing the current total case count above 7,000.

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 2024 – 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 2024 – Chemical manufacturers 3M, Chemguard, and Tyco Fire Products are seeking to transfer a lawsuit initiated by the Connecticut attorney general to federal court. The lawsuit aims to limit the use of PFAS chemicals, which the state has labeled a “toxic menace to human health.” The companies argue that their production of aqueous film-forming foam, implicated in PFAS contamination, was conducted under strict U.S. military specifications, including the requirement of PFAS compounds like PFOA and PFOS. They contend that the complexities of the case and their role as government contractors supplying a critical product necessitate a federal venue, leveraging the government contractor defense.

February 2024 – The federal judge presiding over the case commended the initiative behind 3M Co.’s offer to settle with public water systems for a minimum of $10.5 billion. This proposal aims to alleviate liability concerns and assist around 12,000 public water systems in eliminating PFAS contaminants.

January 2024 -The MDL judge has recently approved a joint request to postpone the deadline for the involved parties to discuss and resolve a current discovery dispute and a motion to compel. This extension moves the deadline to January 31, 2024, allowing more time for the parties to negotiate and address the issues at hand.

December 2023 – In the past 30 days, 227 new cases have been added to the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL, increasing the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 6,627. A significant portion of these cases are related to water contamination issues, many of which have already reached settlement agreements.

December 2023 – Today, (December 12th) lawyers involved in the AFFF case filed a joint motion to formalize the selection of the Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool, which includes a diverse mix of twenty-five plaintiffs. This group is composed of five kidney cancer claimants, eight with testicular cancer allegations, another eight claiming hypothyroidism or thyroid disease, and four asserting ulcerative colitis cases.

As a key step in the bellwether discovery process, this move is geared towards facilitating the progression of trials related to AFFF personal injury and wrongful death. In a significant legal decision, the parties involved have consented to forgo their Lexecon rights for these specific cases. This decision, detailed previously in our update on December 5th, is applicable only to those individuals selected as Personal Injury Tier One Plaintiffs, marking a strategic approach to streamline the trial process for these bellwether cases.

December 2023 -Judge Gergel is intensifying his examination of the AFFF lawsuit inventory to better understand the direction of the litigation and the extent of cancers linked to firefighting foam. Most personal injury and wrongful death claims in the AFFF class action involve illnesses beyond the four conditions currently under review by the court: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

To validate the claims involving additional diseases, Judge Gergel has mandated several tasks to be completed within a 60-day timeframe. These include compiling a detailed list of all plaintiff cases that allege diseases other than the four already under scrutiny. Additionally, all peer-reviewed scientific studies that explore associations between AFFF exposure and other diseases must be submitted. Furthermore, there are plans to organize a ‘science day’, where experts will discuss and debate the alleged connections between these other diseases and exposure to AFFF-contaminated water. This comprehensive approach aims to ensure a thorough and scientific examination of all potential health impacts linked to AFFF.

December 2023 – The MDL judge issued Case Management Order #CMO 26B, a significant step towards initiating trials that could pave the way for a comprehensive AFFF settlement in the coming year. In essence, CMO 26B provides a framework for selecting specific plaintiffs for a key group known as the “Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool.” This group is crucial because the outcomes of these cases serve as indicators for how similar cases in the lawsuit might unfold. Achieving substantial verdicts in these initial trials is vital, as they often lead to more significant settlements overall. Therefore, the strategic selection of cases for early trials under CMO 26B is a critical component in advancing towards a potential global settlement.

December 2023 – By December 11, 2023, parties in the AFFF lawsuit must submit a list to the court containing the lawyers for the plaintiffs, all defendants and their lawyers, and confirmations of Lexecon waivers, which allow cases to be tried in the consolidated MDL court in South Carolina instead of the original court. This list should also include a summary of each plaintiff’s claimed injuries and the incident’s location, references to key legal documents, and any disagreements about including specific plaintiffs. Based on this list, the court will select 28 plaintiffs for the “Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool,” leading to “Tier 1 Discovery,” where intensive pretrial information exchange occurs between the parties.

December 2023 – In the AFFF class action MDL, the current focus is specifically on a subset of water contamination cases known as the Telomer water provider cases. Recent developments, including orders and rulings in the MDL, are exclusively pertaining to this group. This subgroup is distinct as it was not included in the water contamination settlement that occurred in August.

This concentration on the Telomer cases implies a potential delay for the other pending cases in the MDL, particularly the individual cancer lawsuits. These cases, which are separate from the Telomer water provider matters, are likely to experience postponements in their proceedings as a result of the current focus on the specific subgroup.

This situation highlights the complex and often segmented nature of class action lawsuits, where different groups or types of cases within the same MDL can experience varying progress and attention. For the individual cancer cases, this means an extended wait for legal resolution and potential justice.

November 2023 – The recent period in the AFFF class action docket has seen a predominant focus on water contamination lawsuits, leading to significant delays in the litigation process. This situation has underscored the critical consequences of these delays in legal proceedings.

Amidst these developments, three “Suggestion of Death” notices were filed in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). These notices serve a grave reminder of the real human impact of the delayed justice, as they indicate that three plaintiffs have passed away while waiting for their cases to be resolved. The filing of these notices highlights the unfortunate reality of plaintiffs not living to see the outcome of their legal battles.

A “Suggestion of Death” notice is a formal legal document that informs the court and other parties involved in the litigation of a plaintiff’s death. This notification initiates a specific legal process. It involves the substitution of the deceased party with an appropriate representative, often the executor, personal representative, or administrator of the deceased’s estate. Additionally, this change can lead to the transformation of the lawsuit into either a survival action or a wrongful death lawsuit, ensuring that the legal claims of the deceased are continued by their survivors.

November 2023 – Over the past month, 351 new cases were added to the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL, increasing the total number of pending cases to 6,400. Approximately half of these cases are related to municipal water contamination and have already been settled. The rest are personal injury claims filed by individuals.

November 2023 – This month, the involved parties are choosing the cases for the bellwether discovery pool in the AFFF personal injury lawsuit. Per Case Management Order 26A from last month, they have until November 14, 2023, to propose plaintiff lists for bellwether candidates. These selected plaintiffs will undergo detailed case-specific fact discovery, leading to the eventual selection of a few for the actual bellwether personal injury trials.

October 2023 – Recent studies further associate AFFF with specific cancers, adding to the rising number of related legal cases. The National Cancer Institute identified a link between AFFF and heightened testicular cancer risk among Air Force personnel, while forthcoming research from eBioMedicine suggests a significant connection between a PFAS compound in AFFF and increased thyroid cancer risk.

Sept 2023 – Nearly 6,000 individual AFFF lawsuits have been merged into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Municipalities are close to finalizing a $10.3B settlement to cover clean-up costs of water contamination, ensuring manufacturers, not residents, pay for the damages.

July 2023 – Medical study establishes a clear link between PFAs in the body and testicular cancer.

July 2023 – Municipality lawsuits against AFFF manufacturers like 3M and DuPont have reached settlements, shifting the focus to individual claims. DuPont and its affiliates agreed to a $1.18 billion settlement for around 300 PFAS complaints, while 3M is set to pay up to $10.3 billion, potentially rising to $12.5 billion over time.

June 2023 – Record spike in AFFF lawsuits with 493 new cases joining the multi-district litigation (MDL), marking the highest monthly increase to date. While some of these over 5,000 cases involve water contamination by municipalities, a portion of them are personal injury suits, which will gain attention once municipal settlements are finalized.

June 2023 – The initial trial in the AFFF class action set for June 5, 2023, was halted due to a settlement agreement. Defendants opted to settle all water contamination cases for a rumored $10.3 billion, which will be paid over 13 years to address PFAS water system contamination.

June 2023 – Three major AFFF lawsuit defendants—DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva—agreed to a $1.185 billion settlement to address municipal water contamination claims. The settlement awaits approval by the District Court in South Carolina.

May 2023 – The EPA proposed a stringent PFAS limit in drinking water, which will be admitted as evidence in the first AFFF trial next month. Despite objections from defendants, the court allowed this information, which could influence the trial’s outcome and future settlements.

May 2023 – Due to bankruptcy, Kidde-Fenwal was removed from the upcoming Stuart, FL, water contamination trial. Subsequent trials will center on personal injury claims by firefighters and military personnel exposed to AFFF, categorized by the type of health issues suffered.

May 2023 – The first bellwether trial in the AFFF lawsuit involves Stuart, Florida’s claim of water supply contamination by PFAS from AFFF products. Despite the defendants’ challenges, the trial will proceed, requiring the jury to weigh complex scientific evidence.

May 2023 – As the first bellwether trial approaches, a study revealed PFAS presence in all tested firefighter gear materials. The potential absorption risks and cancer links are under scrutiny.

April 2023 – The CDC launched a registry to track cancer incidences among firefighters, recognizing the rising acknowledgment of cancer risks associated with AFFF exposure.

March 2023 – The Air Force began discontinuing PFAS-containing fire suppressants, aiming for a complete phase-out by 2024, highlighting the urgency of addressing AFFF exposure.

February 2023 – The state of Illinois filed a lawsuit against AFFF manufacturers, citing drinking water contamination risks, possibly seeking a swifter resolution outside the South Carolina MDL.

January 2023 – Recent research indicated significantly higher rates of prostate cancer and leukemia among firefighters compared to the general population.

2022 AFFF Lawsuit Updates

December 2022 – 100 new AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits added to the class action MDL, bringing the total to 3,399. The first bellwether trial is set for June 2023, focusing on a municipal water contamination case.

November 2022 – MDL sees modest growth with 111 new cases, totaling 3,299 pending lawsuits. This marks significant growth since the beginning of the year, with 2,100 cases initially.

November 2022 – Settlement efforts commence with the appointment of a mediator for upcoming talks before the first bellwether trial in June 2023. Both personal injury and municipal water contamination claims are involved.

October 2022 – The first bellwether trial case is selected: City of Stuart v. 3M Company, focusing on municipal water contamination. The trial is scheduled for June 5, 2023.

September 2022 – A significant win for AFFF plaintiffs as the class action judge rejects 3M’s government contractor defense. 3M sought immunity from liability for its firefighting foam products, but the judge ruled this defense inapplicable due to evidence of 3M’s knowledge of potential hazards without proper warning to the government. This decision prevents the elimination of many claims in the lawsuit.

September 2022 – A trial date for the first bellwether case in the AFFF MDL is set for April 2023. The selection of the case will occur in December 2022. Trial dates often accelerate settlement talks, with a favorable initial trial outcome potentially leading toward a global settlement.

August 2022 – In a one-month span, 115 new AFFF lawsuits joined the MDL, raising the active case count to 2,700. Many new cases involve plaintiffs from or near military bases, alleging AFFF use led to PFAS-contaminated water and resulting health issues.

July 2022 – A study in the journal Hypertension highlights the risk of PFAS chemicals, associating a 42% to 47% increased risk of hypertension in women exposed to PFAS. The highest PFAS levels correlated with a 71% increased hypertension risk, based on a study of 1,058 women, of whom 470 developed hypertension between 1999 and 2017.

June 2022 – Ninety-two new AFFF lawsuits were added to the MDL, with the total now at 2,586. Over half of these new cases are individual cancer claims linked to firefighting foam exposure, while others involve municipalities alleging local water supply contamination.

June 2022 – Plaintiffs in the AFFF class action are urging the court to compel DuPont and Chemours Co. to release thousands of documents they’ve withheld. The plaintiffs argue that the claimed attorney-client privilege is invalid due to a lack of “common interest” and allege the spin-off was a fraudulent transfer to offload liabilities.

May 2022 – A study from the Maine Medical Center Research Institute reveals a new health risk associated with PFAS in AFFF foam: reduced bone mineral density in adolescent boys, leading to fractures and orthopedic issues. This adds to the mounting evidence of PFAS dangers.

April 2022 – The AFFF lawsuits face a hurdle with the government contractor defense asserted by multiple defendants. The court is seeking a singular comprehensive brief on the issue, but proposals from both sides fail to meet this criterion, reflecting typical MDL class action complexities.

March 2022 – The Plaintiffs’ Scientific Committee in the AFFF MDL presented new evidence linking AFFF chemicals to cancer. The evidence includes a California OEHHA notice labeling an AFFF chemical as a carcinogen and a draft EPA report calling PFOA a “likely” human carcinogen. Despite the defense’s rebuttal, the association between PFOA and cancer is strengthening.

February 2022 – Defense attorneys in the AFFF class action have moved for partial summary judgment based on government contractor immunity. A decision is expected by the end of March, with the next status conference scheduled for February 25.

January 2022 – The AFFF MDL class action continues to grow, now encompassing nearly 2,034 plaintiffs.

The Basics of the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Lawsuit

The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) lawsuit centers on the harmful effects of a firefighting foam used extensively for decades. Under scrutiny are its toxic components, associated health risks, and the range of illnesses it’s purportedly caused. We’ll dive into what AFFF is, its dangers, and the specific illnesses linked to its exposure.

What is AFFF?

For over half a century now, aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has been widely used to put out dangerous, combustible liquid fires like fuel fires and certain chemical fires. Although it may be effective at snuffing out these kinds of fires, AFFF can be very dangerous to animals, humans, and the ecosystem.

AFFF consists of multiple toxic chemicals, including hydrocarbon-based and fluorinated surfactants, which scientific studies have proven to be carcinogenic. Fluorinated surfactants fall under a class of chemical substances referred to as polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

Since the human body cannot break them down, PFAS are referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ because they remain in the body permanently. PFAS is the main constituent of many AFFF firefighting foams. Following a report released by the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS tend to accrue in the body over time – as well as in the environment. Subsequently, this can result in a slew of environmental dangers and ailments.

The Dangers of AFFF Exposure: Prostate Cancer, Testicular Cancer, & More

Exposure to aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), poses significant health risks due to its PFAS content. These “forever chemicals” are linked to various cancers, hormonal disruptions, and immune system impairments. The accumulation of PFAS in the body over time, even at low levels, can lead to severe health issues. Consequently, this has led to an increase in AFFF lawsuit pursuits, as affected individuals seek accountability for the health consequences they’ve endured due to AFFF exposure.

Which Illnesses Have Been Linked to AFFF?

There are two PFAS compounds or chemicals in firefighting foam: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). Prolonged exposure to these chemicals can see them accumulate in the body to dangerous levels and have been linked to many illnesses, including:

• Kidney Cancer
• Testicular Cancer Hashimoto’sdism
• HypeGraves’dism
• Hashimoto’s Disease
• Graves’ Disease
• Ulcerative Colitis
• Bladder Cancer
• Blood Cancenon-Hodgkin’s multiple mHodgkin’son-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma)
• Male Breast Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Pancreatic Cancer
• Prostate Cancer

If you or somebody you love has been diagnosed with any of the aforementioned forms of cancer, or if a loved one has succumbed as a result of complications resulting from these kinds of cancer after AFFF exposure, you could be eligible to seek legal redress. Our AFFF lawsuit attorneys at Rueb Stoller Daniel can help you in filing a mass litigation claim.

What Should I Do If I Have Been Exposed to AFFF?

If you or somebody close to you has contracted a form of cancer after exposure to firefighting form, consulting with a physician for a thorough assessment should be your first step. After getting examined, you should then get in touch with one of our seasoned firefighting foam attorneys at Rueb Stoller Daniel.

We provide complimentary consultations to anyone who feels they may qualify for the AFFF lawsuits. During the complimentary case review, we will:

• Guide you through your viable legal options
• Evaluate your case and clarify any questions you may have concerning the case
• Discuss the likelihood of joining the class-action suit against negligent manufacturers

A lawyer can assist in investigating your claim and gather the evidence you need to prove your case. If you worked in the Navy or airport as a firefighter, those documents would also indicate when you were possibly exposed. A lawyer can assist in reviewing what chemicals were used in your workplace and pinpoint scenarios where you may have been directly exposed.

We offer our consultation servthere’s a contingency basis and there’s no obligation to enlist us afterwards. If you choose to move forward with us as your legal counsel, we will offer our services on a contingency fee plan.

AFFF Lawsuits: Seeking Justice for Toxic Exposure

AFFF lawsuits represent a critical fight for justice by those harmed by toxic exposure to firefighting foams.

These legal actions seek to hold manufacturers accountable for the health risks linked to the harmful PFAS chemicals in aqueous film forming foam.

By pursuing these cases, victims and their families are not only seeking compensation for their suffering but also pushing for greater corporate responsibility and public safety measures to prevent future harm.

How Do AFFF Lawsuits Work?

To prove the validity of your AFFF lawsuit, you’ll want a personal injury lawyer by your side to explain your legal rights and provide you with proper information on what you will need to provide, including:

Medical Records

Your medical documents will have your diagnosis and when it was carried out, notes from your physician about the seriousness of your symptoms, and the areas of your life that have been affected.

These records will also provide information regarding any cancer treatments required, including surgical treatment, radiation, and chemotherapy.

Medical Bills

Your medical costs will assist in forming the basis of your AFFF exposure lawsuit.

Gather all medical costs associated with your cancer diagnosis, including costs of examinations, follow-ups, cancer treatments, and any operations conducted.

You may also put in expenses for any medical equipment used during your ailment or for long-term in-home care.

Evidence of Your AFFF Exposure

Where and in what context did you get AFFF exposure?

Were you a firefighter at a local fire station, in an airport, or on a Navy base?

Did you suffer exposure to AFFF chemicals in groundwater that you drank, or was the exposure over time?

A committed AFFF foam lawyer at Rueb Stoller Daniel can assist you in figuring all this out and gathering the necessary evidence proving your AFFF exposure.

Who Qualifies for the AFFF Foam Lawsuits?

We are presently taking on new clients pursuing AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits. At the law offices of Rueb Stoller Daniel, for plaintiffs to qualify, they must meet these two criteria:

AFFF Exposure: Some individuals working in certain fields are more at risk of exposure to these dangerous chemicals found in AFFF firefighting foam.

Eligible plaintiffs must definitively prove that they were frequently exposed to PFAS from handling AFFF firefighting foam while on the clock (e.g., airport worker, firefighter, etc.) or from contaminated groundwater

Cancer Diagnosis: Plaintiffs who definitively show that they faced exposure to AFFF for prolonged durations will also have to indicate that they were diagnosed with one or more of the following cancer diagnoses affiliated with PFAS:

• Bladder cancer
• Liver cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Kidney cancer, etc.

Key Factors in AFFF Firefighting Foam Litigation

Understanding the intricacies of AFFF lawsuits is essential for anyone involved in these lawsuits. Several key factors play a crucial role in the success and direction of AFFF cases:

1. Extent of Exposure: The amount and duration of AFFF exposure are critical in establishing the link between the AFFF firefighting foam and any resulting health conditions.

2. Health Impact: Documented medical evidence showing the health repercussions directly associated with AFFF exposure strengthens the case.

3. Product Identification: Identifying the specific AFFF product and connecting it to the manufacturers involved in the litigation is vital.

4. Statute of Limitations: Each state has a time limit for filing a lawsuit, known as the statute of limitations. Missing this deadline can disqualify a claim.

5. Scientific Evidence: Scientific studies and expert testimonies that demonstrate the harmful effects of the chemicals in AFFF provide a strong foundation for the lawsuit.

6. Legal Precedents: Outcomes of previous AFFF lawsuits and MDL decisions can influence the proceedings and potential settlements of current cases.

7. Representation: The expertise and experience of the legal team representing the AFFF victims are instrumental in navigating the complexities of environmental litigation.

Considering these factors, along with a thorough legal strategy, can significantly impact the outcome of AFFF lawsuits. Those affected by AFFF exposure should seek legal counsel with a deep understanding of these elements to ensure their case is handled with the diligence it deserves.

The Process of Filing an AFFF Lawsuit

Many victims exposed to AFFF are filing class-action suits against companies who made and sold the foam, claiming that they were aware of the potential health concerns but sold them anyway. The claims argue that the manufacturers should be held culpable for the harm caused by AFFF firefighting foam.

Navigating the legal system can be challenging, especially in complex cases like those involving AFFF firefighting foam. Understanding the process of filing an AFFF lawsuit is the first step toward seeking justice and compensation for damages incurred due to AFFF exposure.

Steps to File an AFFF Lawsuit

Filing an AFFF lawsuit involves several key steps:

1. Consultation: Start with a free consultation with a specialized attorney to discuss your case’s specifics, including your exposure history and any health complications.

2. Case Evaluation: Your attorney will review the details of your case to determine eligibility and the potential for a successful claim.

3. Documentation: Gather all necessary documents, such as medical records and evidence of AFFF exposure, to support your lawsuit.

4. Filing the Lawsuit: Your attorney will file a legal complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction, outlining the damages and the basis for the claim.

5. Discovery: Both parties exchange information and gather further evidence. This stage may involve depositions, requests for documents, and interrogatories.

6. Pre-Trial Motions and Settlement Negotiations: Before the trial, there may be motions to resolve specific legal issues. Simultaneously, there could be settlement negotiations to resolve the case without going to trial.

7. Trial: If the case does not settle, it will go to trial, where both sides present their arguments, and a judge or jury makes a decision.

How Rueb Stoller Daniel Supports Your AFFF Firefighting Foam Case

At Rueb Stoller Daniel, we provide comprehensive support throughout your AFFF lawsuit:

Personalized Attention: We understand each case is unique and provide personalized legal strategies tailored to your circumstances.

Expertise and Experience: Our attorneys have a wealth of experience in environmental and toxic tort law, ensuring knowledgeable representation.

Resource Accessibility: We leverage our resources and network of experts to build a strong case on your behalf.

Communication: Keeping you informed at every stage of the process, we ensure transparency and availability to address your concerns.

Advocacy: Our team is dedicated to advocating fiercely for your rights and interests, both in and out of the courtroom.

Choosing Rueb Stoller Daniel means partnering with a firm that stands steadfastly by your side, guiding you through the complexities of AFFF lawsuits and striving for the justice and compensation you deserve.

AFFF Lawsuit Settlements

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) is a type of it’s used to put out fires, but it’s been linked to different cancers. Lots of people, especially former firefighters or those who were around AFFF a lot and then got sick with cancers like prostate, kidney, pancreatic, or testicular cancer, have sued. All the AFFF lawsuits across the country were brought together into one big case in a federal court in South Carolina. Right now, there are about 3,400 lawsuits in this big case.

In June 2023, it was announced that companies like 3M and DuPont, who are being sued, agreed to pay $10.3 billion to settle claims about AFFF polluting water, made by local governments. This big payment will end all the lawsuits made by cities and towns.

But, there haven’t been any big settlements reported yet for lawsuits made by individuals who say AFFF caused their cancer. Usually, in big cases like this with lots of people involved, settlements don’t happen until after one or two smaller trials have taken place. The amount of money each person might get for their lawsuit could be quite a bit higher.

Understanding AFFF Lawsuit Settlements

Navigating the complexities of AFFF lawsuit settlements can be daunting. These settlements aim to compensate individuals who have been adversely affected by exposure to AFFF firefighting foam.

Settlement amounts can vary widely based on the severity of the health impact and the level of exposure. While recent large-scale settlements have addressed municipal claims of water contamination, individual AFFF lawsuit settlements are still unfolding.

It’s crucial for affected parties to understand that these legal processes take time and often hinge on the outcomes of initial trial cases. Engaging with knowledgeable AFFF firefighting foam lawyers can provide clarity and ensure a well-represented case in the pursuit of a just settlement.

A Glance at AFFF Firefighting Foam MDL and Its Implications

MDL stands for “Multidistrict Litigation” – a way to handle a large number of lawsuits that are similar.

In the case of AFFF, many lawsuits from across the country were grouped together in an MDL because they all involved claims about the dangers of firefighting foam.

This means that they are dealt with in one federal court to make the process more efficient. The MDL is currently located in South Carolina.

The decision made in this court will affect all the cases grouped under it. While MDL can speed up proceedings and make them more consistent, it also means individual cases might be influenced by the outcomes of others.

Knowing how MDL works is crucial for anyone involved in an AFFF lawsuit, as its implications can significantly impact the direction and outcome of their case.

Additional Aqueous Film Forming Foam Information

Historical Use of AFFF

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has been a staple in firefighting, particularly in battling fuel fires, since its development in the 1960s. Its unique ability to smother flammable liquids made it invaluable in military, aviation, and industrial settings. Initially hailed for its effectiveness, AFFF’s widespread use led to unintended consequences. Composed of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), AFFF’s chemical components are extremely persistent in the environment and in human bodies, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.”

As its use proliferated, so did the contamination of water sources near military bases, airports, and firefighting training facilities. The historical significance of AFFF is marred by the slow recognition of its hazardous implications, a reflection of a time when the environmental and health impacts of chemical compounds were less understood or considered.

As litigation and scientific understanding have evolved, the narrative of AFFF has shifted from a firefighting miracle to a source of lasting environmental and health concerns, forcing a reckoning with its historical use and the legacy it leaves behind.

Future of Firefighting Foams

The future of firefighting foams is poised for a dramatic shift as the dangers of AFFF become increasingly clear. Researchers and industry players are actively developing and testing alternatives that maintain the effective fire-suppressing qualities of AFFF without the harmful environmental and health impacts of PFAS. These innovative solutions include fluorine-free foams (FFF) that use alternative surfactants to create a fire-suppressing film.

While some early versions of these foams struggled to match AFFF’s performance, especially in high-intensity fires, recent advancements have shown promising results. Adoption, however, faces challenges, including regulatory approvals, compatibility with existing firefighting equipment, and the need for retraining personnel on the new products.

The transition also involves complex logistics, such as safely disposing of existing AFFF stockpiles to prevent further contamination. Despite these hurdles, the shift is gaining momentum driven by increasing regulatory pressures, growing environmental consciousness, and the industry’s commitment to safety and sustainability.

As these new foams are refined and adopted, the firefighting community stands at the cusp of a new era, one that promises effective fire suppression without compromising the health of firefighters and the environment.

The Science Behind PFAS:

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of human-made chemicals that include over 4,700 compounds. Their unique molecular structure — a chain of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine atoms — imparts a robustness that resists heat, water, oil, and stains, making them valuable in a variety of products from non-stick pans to waterproof clothing.

However, this same resilience makes PFAS highly persistent in the environment and in biological systems, leading to their accumulation over time. Exposure to certain PFAS has been linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, thyroid disease, immune system effects, and developmental issues in infants.

These chemicals can migrate into soil, water, and air during their production and use, leading to widespread environmental contamination. They are also bioaccumulative, meaning they can build up in the bodies of animals and humans. Despite their small size, PFAS molecules can bind to proteins in the blood, remaining in the body for years.

The science behind PFAS is a stark reminder of the complex interplay between industrial innovation and environmental health, highlighting the need for a precautionary approach in the development and use of chemical substances.

Legal Landscapes and Precedents

The legal landscape surrounding AFFF and PFAS is a complex and evolving arena, marked by a multitude of lawsuits and regulatory actions. In the United States, multidistrict litigation (MDL) has become a focal point, consolidating numerous cases alleging that manufacturers concealed the dangers of PFAS in AFFF.

These legal actions hinge on arguments of negligence, product liability, and failure to warn users and the public about the risks. Precedents in these cases are being closely watched, as they not only influence the outcomes of thousands of claims but also shape the legal responsibilities of chemical manufacturers.

Additionally, some states have taken independent legal actions, seeking compensation for environmental clean-up and public health monitoring. Globally, the legal landscape varies, with some countries implementing strict regulations and others just beginning to grapple with the implications of PFAS contamination. The European Union, for instance, has been proactive in restricting certain PFAS and is exploring a broader ban.

The outcomes of ongoing and future legal battles are poised to set significant precedents that could redefine corporate accountability, environmental protection laws, and the safety standards for chemical production and use.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences of AFFF and PFAS contamination are far-reaching and persistent. PFAS chemicals have been detected in soil, freshwater, marine environments, and wildlife around the globe. The contamination often stems from sites where AFFF was frequently used or tested, such as military bases, airports, and firefighter training facilities.

In the environment, PFAS compounds resist degradation, cycling through water systems, and accumulate in the food chain. This persistence poses a threat to ecosystems, affecting species diversity and health. In some areas, PFAS contamination has led to fish advisories and the closure of water wells. Moreover, these chemicals can bind to plant roots and accumulate in crops, posing a risk to agriculture and food safety.

The long-term environmental impact is still being studied, but it’s clear that PFAS contamination contributes to biodiversity loss, disrupts ecological balances, and can have cascading effects on ecosystem services. Remediation efforts are challenging and costly due to the chemicals’ persistence and widespread presence. Techniques such as soil excavation, water filtration, and bioremediation are being explored, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

As scientific understanding of the environmental consequences grows, it’s crucial that regulatory agencies and industries collaborate on sustainable practices and develop safer alternatives to AFFF. The environmental legacy of PFAS is a cautionary tale about the need for rigorous testing and regulation of chemicals before they are widely used.

International Perspective

The issue of AFFF and PFAS contamination is not confined to any single nation; it’s a global concern that requires international cooperation and policy-making. Different countries have approached the problem with varying degrees of urgency and regulation.

The European Union, for instance, has been a leader in researching PFAS impacts and regulating their use, considering a wide-reaching ban on non-essential uses of PFAS. Countries like Australia and Canada have also implemented measures to phase out PFAS in firefighting foams and establish guidelines for managing contaminated sites.

However, in many parts of the world, awareness and regulation of PFAS are still in early stages. International bodies like the United Nations Environment Programme are increasingly recognizing the need for global action on PFAS, given their persistence and ability to travel long distances in the environment.

Sharing research, technology, and policy frameworks across borders is essential to tackle PFAS contamination effectively. Ultimately, a concerted international effort is crucial to mitigate the health and environmental risks posed by these chemicals and prevent further contamination on a global scale.

AFFF Lawsuit FAQs

What is the average payout for the AFFF lawsuit?

The average payout for an AFFF lawsuit can vary significantly based on the specifics of each case, including the degree of exposure and the severity of health impacts.

While some AFFF lawsuit settlements have resulted in substantial compensation well over $400k for plaintiffs, quantifying an average is challenging due to the variability of cases and the confidential nature of many settlements.

It’s essential to consult with experienced AFFF firefighting foam lawyers who can evaluate your case and provide a more personalized estimate.

Who is eligible for the AFFF lawsuit?

Eligibility for an AFFF lawsuit typically includes individuals who have experienced significant exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, particularly those who have developed health issues as a result.

This often encompasses firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and residents near facilities where AFFF was extensively used.

To assess your eligibility to file an AFFF lawsuit, it’s advisable to seek guidance from specialized attorneys who understand the nuances of AFFF litigation.

Is the AFFF lawsuit real?

Yes, the AFFF lawsuit is real.

It stems from litigation against manufacturers of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) used in firefighting.

Plaintiffs allege that exposure to chemicals in AFFF, particularly PFAS, has led to serious health issues, including cancer. These lawsuits have gained traction across the United States, with numerous cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Individuals seeking to join should consult with AFFF lawyers to understand the validity and relevance of their case.

How do I join an AFFF lawsuit?

To join an AFFF lawsuit, begin by consulting with attorneys who specialize in toxic firefighting foam lawsuits.

They will evaluate your case, including your history of AFFF exposure and any related health issues, to determine eligibility.

If eligible, your AFFF lawyers will guide you through the process of filing a claim, which may involve joining existing multidistrict litigation (MDL) or pursuing an individual lawsuit.

It’s crucial to act promptly, as there may be time limits, known as statutes of limitations, for filing an AFFF lawsuit.

What are AFFF’s negative effects?

Exposure to AFFF, particularly the PFAS chemicals it contains, has been linked to various health issues. Here’s a list of known side effects:

• Different forms of cancer, including:
  • Kidney cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Pancreatic cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Leukemia
  • Lymphoma
• Hormonal disruptions
• Immune system problems
• Reproductive and developmental issues
• Increased cholesterol levels
• Weight gain in children and dieting adults
• Increased risk of high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnant women

It’s important to note that these side effects are associated with long-term exposure to the PFAS chemicals in AFFF.

Can military members get VA benefits for AFFF exposure?

Yes, former military firefighters and others who came into contact with AFFF during their service might qualify for VA disability benefits. Additionally, they can sue the manufacturers of the harmful chemicals in AFFF.

What’s the alternative to AFFF foam?

GreenFire® Firefighting Foam (GFFF) is a safe replacement for AFFF. It’s a Class B foam that’s non-toxic and doesn’t cause cancer, making it a secure option for firefighters while also effectively putting out fires.

Ready to Pursue Justice? Contact Our AFFF Lawyers Today

Taking a stand against the health repercussions of AFFF exposure is not juit’sbout seeking compensation — it’s about pursuing justice.

If you or a loved one has been affected, our team of dedicated AFFF lawyers is ready to help you navigate this challenging journey.

Schedule Your Free Consultation

The path to justice begins with understanding your rights and options.

We invite you to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation with our knowledgeable AFFF attorneys at 1-866-CALL-RSD.

During this consultation, we’ll listen to your story, evaluate the details of your case, and provide clear guidance on the best course of action. This initial step is crucial in laying the groundwork for a robust legal strategy.

Why Rueb Stoller Daniel is the Right Choice If You Want to File an AFFF Lawsuit

Choosing the right legal team can make all the difference in your AFFF lawsuit. Here’s why Rueb Stoller Daniel stands out:

Dedication to Clients: Our clients are more than just case numbers. We’re committed to your well-being and to fighting for the justice you deserve.

Proven Track Record: With a history of successful outcomes in environmental and toxic tort cases, our firm has the experience to navigate the complexities of AFFF litigation effectively.

Resourcefulness: We leverage our extensive resources and connections with industry experts to build a compelling case on your behalf.

Personalized Strategy: Every AFFF case is unique. We tailor our legal approach to align with your specific circumstances and goals.

Transparency and Communication: Open and honest communication is at the heart of our client relationships. You’ll always be informed and involved in decision-making processes.

If you’re ready to pursue justice and hold those responsible for AFFF exposure accountable, Rueb Stoller Daniel is here to help you successfully file an AFFF lawsuit. Contact us today to start the conversation. 1-866-CALL-RSD

Annual Scholarship