AFFF Lawsuit

Firefighting foam, a tool designed to save lives, may be quietly harming thousands. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), used extensively by firefighters and military personnel for decades, contains chemicals so persistent they’ve earned the nickname "forever chemicals." These compounds, scientifically known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are now linked to severe health risks, including cancer and organ damage.

The alarming reality? Communities near military bases, airports, and industrial sites may be unknowingly exposed to these dangerous substances, with far-reaching consequences for their health and environment. Lawsuits across the nation are targeting manufacturers who allegedly concealed the risks of PFAS, sparking a wave of legal action to hold them accountable.

This guide will explore the health impacts of AFFF exposure, the legal landscape of ongoing lawsuits, and how you can take action. 

Ready to take action? Call (XXX) XXX-XXXX today to discuss your case and protect your future.

What Is AFFF?

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, better known as AFFF, has been a staple in firefighting since the 1960s. This chemical foam was heralded as a breakthrough for its ability to extinguish high-intensity fires fueled by flammable liquids, such as jet fuel or gasoline. Unlike water, which can spread such fires, AFFF forms a barrier that smothers flames and prevents reignition.

The foam’s effectiveness lies in its chemical composition, which includes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These man-made chemicals resist heat, water, and oil, making them ideal for firefighting applications. 

Over time, however, the very properties that make PFAS effective in fire suppression have raised red flags in environmental and health communities. PFAS do not break down in the environment and can accumulate in the human body, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.”

Where AFFF Is Used

AFFF is most commonly associated with the following settings:

• Military Bases: The Department of Defense (DoD) has used AFFF extensively in training exercises and emergency response, particularly at Air Force and Navy bases.
• Airports: Federal regulations under the FAA historically required airports to stock and use AFFF to meet firefighting standards.
• Industrial Sites: Refineries and chemical plants often rely on AFFF due to the high risk of flammable liquid fires.

The widespread use of AFFF means its residues often seep into soil and groundwater. Communities near these locations may face long-term exposure, even decades after the foam was initially used.

Legal Implications of AFFF Use

The use and regulation of AFFF are now under intense scrutiny. Laws like the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with authority to regulate PFAS, but loopholes and delays have allowed these chemicals to persist in everyday use. Additionally, in states like California, new laws restrict PFAS in consumer products, signaling a shift in how these chemicals are managed.

Health Risks Associated with AFFF Exposure

The chemicals in AFFF may extinguish fires, but their effects on human health are anything but protective. PFAS, the primary component of AFFF, have been linked to a range of serious health issues. These chemicals persist in the body for years, gradually accumulating and disrupting vital biological processes.

Documented Health Conditions Linked to PFAS

Studies from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have identified several health risks associated with PFAS exposure:

• Cancers:
  • Kidney Cancer: Strongly correlated with occupational exposure to PFAS.
  • Testicular Cancer: Commonly observed in individuals with prolonged contact with firefighting foam.
• Liver Damage: PFAS are known to impair liver function, leading to conditions like non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
• Thyroid Dysfunction: Exposure has been linked to hypothyroidism and other thyroid irregularities, particularly in women.
• Immune System Suppression: PFAS can weaken the immune system, reducing the body’s ability to fight infections.
• Reproductive and Developmental Issues: Studies have reported lower birth weights, delayed development, and increased risk of preeclampsia in pregnant individuals exposed to PFAS.

How PFAS Enter the Body

Exposure to AFFF typically occurs in one of three ways:

1. Inhalation: Firefighters and emergency responders may breathe in airborne particles during firefighting operations.
2. Ingestion: Contaminated drinking water near military bases, airports, or industrial sites can expose entire communities to PFAS.
3. Skin Contact: Prolonged exposure during handling or firefighting exercises allows PFAS to seep through the skin.

Studies Supporting Health Risks

The C8 Science Panel, formed after a PFAS contamination case in West Virginia, studied the long-term effects of these chemicals on human health. Their findings confirmed probable links between PFAS exposure and six major diseases, including cancer and thyroid disorders. Additionally, reports from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classify certain PFAS chemicals as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Regulatory Action and Public Health Concerns

The growing body of evidence has spurred regulatory efforts. In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed stricter limits on PFAS in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). While these regulations represent progress, enforcement remains a challenge, leaving many communities without adequate protection.

Legal Landscape of AFFF Lawsuits

The Basis for AFFF Lawsuits

AFFF lawsuits are rooted in allegations of corporate misconduct that placed profits above public health and safety, which are based on two primary legal theories:

1. Failure to Warn

Manufacturers of AFFF, including major chemical companies like 3M and DuPont, are accused of knowingly withholding critical information about the dangers of PFAS. Evidence presented in lawsuits indicates that these companies were aware as early as the 1960s and 1970s of the toxic properties of PFAS and their persistence in the environment. Despite this knowledge, manufacturers allegedly failed to:

• Warn consumers, including firefighters and military personnel, about the potential health risks of PFAS exposure.
• Provide adequate safety guidelines or instructions for the proper use and disposal of AFFF.
• Inform regulators or the public of the long-term environmental and health impacts associated with these chemicals.

Plaintiffs argue that this lack of transparency prevented them from making informed decisions about their use of AFFF, leading to widespread exposure and harm.

2. Negligence

Negligence claims focus on the reckless production, marketing, and distribution of AFFF by these manufacturers. Plaintiffs contend that companies:

• Ignored Safer Alternatives: By continuing to produce PFAS-based AFFF despite the availability of alternative formulations that were less harmful, manufacturers allegedly prioritized profits over safety.
• Marketed AFFF Aggressively: Chemical companies promoted AFFF as a highly effective firefighting solution while downplaying or concealing its risks.
• Failed to Prevent Environmental Contamination: Despite knowing that PFAS could leach into soil and water, companies did not take sufficient measures to mitigate contamination risks.

This negligence, plaintiffs argue, directly contributed to the severe health conditions and environmental damage now being addressed in courts nationwide.

Key defendants in these lawsuits include chemical giants such as 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, which produced and distributed AFFF products widely used by firefighters and military personnel.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

To manage the growing number of lawsuits, AFFF cases have been consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2873) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. This consolidation streamlines pretrial proceedings for claims involving AFFF exposure. 

As of this article’s publication date, thousands of cases are part of this MDL, representing a range of plaintiffs, including individuals, municipalities, and water utility companies.

Recent Settlements and Verdicts

Some manufacturers have already reached settlements in high-profile cases. For instance, 3M has agreed to pay over $10 billion to settle lawsuits alleging PFAS contamination of public drinking water systems. Prior to this, DuPont and Chemours settled similar claims for $671 million related to PFAS exposure in West Virginia.

Legal Hurdles and State-Specific Considerations

State laws can significantly influence the outcome of AFFF cases. For example:

• California: New legislation under the PFAS Accountability Act has banned the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam for training and mandated stricter disclosures from manufacturers.
• Michigan: The state has adopted some of the country’s strictest PFAS drinking water standards, setting the stage for additional lawsuits involving groundwater contamination.

In addition to these state-level regulations, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund Act, may hold manufacturers responsible for environmental cleanup costs tied to PFAS contamination.

Who Is Eligible to File an AFFF Lawsuit?

Eligibility to file an AFFF lawsuit largely depends on the nature of the exposure, the resulting health impacts, and the connection between the two. Plaintiffs in these cases often include firefighters, military personnel, and individuals living near contamination sites.

Common Eligibility Criteria

1. Occupational Exposure
   • Firefighters: Those who used AFFF in their professional duties, particularly at airports, military bases, or industrial sites, are at the forefront of these lawsuits.
   • Military Personnel: Service members stationed at facilities where AFFF was used extensively for training or emergency response.
2. Residential Proximity to AFFF Use
   • Individuals who live near airports, military installations, or industrial sites where AFFF was regularly deployed may face exposure through contaminated drinking water or soil.
   • Communities relying on public water systems linked to known contamination sites are often at risk.
3. Medical Diagnosis of Related Conditions
   • A diagnosis of illnesses associated with PFAS exposure, such as kidney cancer, testicular cancer, or thyroid disease, strengthens the basis for a lawsuit.
   • Medical documentation linking these conditions to PFAS exposure is essential for building a strong case.

Statute of Limitations

Filing deadlines for AFFF lawsuits vary by state. In most jurisdictions, statutes of limitations for personal injury claims range from two to five years, depending on when the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. For example:

• In California, the statute of limitations for personal injury is two years, but the "delayed discovery rule" may extend this period if the harm was not immediately apparent.
• In New York, plaintiffs generally have three years to file a personal injury claim related to toxic exposure.

Failure to file within the prescribed time frame can result in losing the right to seek compensation.

Potential Compensation in AFFF Lawsuits

Filing an AFFF lawsuit is not only about holding manufacturers accountable but also about securing financial compensation for the harm caused by PFAS exposure. The damages awarded in these cases aim to address the medical, emotional, and financial burdens that plaintiffs endure.

Types of Compensation

1. Economic Damages
   These are tangible, measurable losses incurred due to AFFF exposure:
   • Medical Expenses:
     • Costs for treatments, hospital stays, and surgeries related to PFAS-linked illnesses.
     • Ongoing expenses for medications, rehabilitation, and future medical care.
   • Lost Wages:
     • Income lost due to missed work for medical treatment or disability caused by AFFF exposure.
   • Loss of Earning Capacity:
     • Compensation for reduced ability to work or advance in one’s career due to long-term health effects.
2. Non-Economic Damages
   These damages address the intangible consequences of PFAS exposure:
   • Pain and Suffering:
     • Physical pain and emotional distress caused by chronic illness or cancer diagnosis.
   • Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
     • Impact on daily activities, hobbies, and personal relationships due to health complications.
3. Punitive Damages
   In cases where manufacturers acted with gross negligence or willful disregard for public safety, courts may award punitive damages. These are designed to punish wrongful conduct and deter similar actions in the future.

Factors Influencing Compensation

The amount of compensation varies depending on several factors:

• Severity of Illness: Plaintiffs with more serious health conditions, such as advanced-stage cancer, may receive higher awards.
• Duration and Level of Exposure: Higher exposure levels and prolonged contact with AFFF often strengthen the case for significant damages.
• Impact on Daily Life: The extent to which exposure has disrupted personal and professional life influences the valuation of non-economic damages.
• Strength of Evidence: Clear documentation of exposure and medical records linking illnesses to PFAS are critical in determining settlement amounts.

Take the First Step Toward Justice

Every flame extinguished with AFFF has left behind a legacy of harm—harm that could affect your health, your community, and your future. If you’ve suffered due to PFAS exposure, now is the time to act.

At Litigation Connect, LLC, we will advocate for your rights and help you build a strong case. Don’t let the opportunity for justice pass you by. Contact us today at (XXX) XXX-XXXX for a free consultation.