CASES

PFAS Litigation: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (“AFFF”) Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation

Name*
Email*
[email protected]
Phone Number*
Location:
Message*
How did you hear about us?
Please acknowledge that while Keller Rohrback L.L.P. welcomes your submission, it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the firm. Any attorney-client relationship we form would be confirmed in a separate writing.*

Acknowledged
Please confirm that you are not a bot*
Source Page
Submit
Should be Empty:

In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability LitigationUnited States District Court, District of South Carolina
MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG

Case Status

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. has filed lawsuits on behalf of several municipalities alleging that Defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination from AFFF use. These cases, along with thousands of others, have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, before Judge Richard Gergel. See case no. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG.

In June 2023, Defendants 3M Company and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. entered into settlement agreements with water provider plaintiffs only. 3M agreed to pay the settlement class between $10.5B and $12.5B, and DuPont agreed to pay $1.185B. The Court entered final orders approving these settlements in Spring 2024. The settlement administration process is currently underway.

On April 12, 2024, Defendant Tyco Fire Products entered into a settlement agreement with the water provider plaintiffs, by which Tyco agreed to pay the settlement class $750M. On May 20, 2024, Defendant BASF Corporation also entered into a settlement agreement with the water provider plaintiffs, by which it agreed to pay the settlement class $315.5M. A final fairness hearing was held on November 1, 2024 for both the Tyco and BASF settlements, and the Court entered an order of final approval on November 22, 2024. Class members will have the opportunity to submit any claims to the Claims Administrator in Spring 2025.

Case Overview

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. represents multiple government entities, including several major municipalities, that have incurred costs related to the investigation, monitoring, treatment, remediation, and/or mitigation of PFAS contamination from AFFF use, or whose property has been affected by PFAS contamination from AFFF use.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants 3M Company, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Tyco Fire Products, BASF Corporation, and numerous other manufacturing companies are responsible for the catastrophic damage that Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), toxic “forever” chemicals, have had on the environment. PFAS are dangerous to human health and the environment even at fleetingly low levels. Because these compounds bio-accumulate and bio-magnify in human and animal tissues, there may be no safe level of exposure to PFAS. PFAS exposure interferes with human immune system functioning, disrupts mammalian reproductive and endocrine systems, and is associated with increased risks of kidney and testicular cancer. In addition to being highly toxic, these “forever chemicals” are highly mobile. When they enter the environment, they travel through soil and eventually work their way into groundwater. Two of the most commonly used PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). For many decades, PFOA was used in the manufacturing of DuPont’s non-stick coating, Teflon. Another common use of both PFOA and PFOS is as a component of a fire-suppressant material called aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF and its Component Products despite knowing that PFAS are toxic, persist indefinitely, and would be routinely released into the environment during firefighting training, emergency response activities, and federally mandated testing of firefighting equipment, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants. With their extensive knowledge of the properties and risks of PFAS, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had all of the information necessary to know that their products would contaminate the environment. Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendants, who continued to manufacture and sell these chemicals for decades despite their knowledge, and request that Defendants pay to help clean up the mess that they created. PFAS cleanup is difficult, expensive, and will take Plaintiffs years to complete. Local municipalities should not be left to shoulder this burden.