AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Our lawyers are handling AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits around the country.

This page provides the most recent news and updates on the AFFF firefighting foam class action lawsuit and our prediction of the settlement amounts plaintiffs with AFFF cancer lawsuits can expect to receive. You will not get more updated news on the AFFF litigation anywhere else.

Our AFFF firefighting foam lawyers believe the defendants will settle most of these lawsuits in early 2025. before there is a single trial. Why? They will follow the same pattern as the water contamination lawsuits they settled for billions of dollars. In those cases, we saw the defendants’ apparent preference for settlement over the uncertainties of a trial. This makes sense; the AFFF lawsuits are strong cases.

This suggests that they are likely to follow a similar path in the firefighting foam lawsuits to avoid the potential of incredibly high jury payouts. As we discuss below, we are moving towards trials in individual firefighting foam cases, and our attorneys think that pressure will lead to an AFFF settlement in early 2025. This page will also provide our most recent estimates on the potential settlement payouts claimants could see in AFFF cases.

Our law firm is taking new AFFF firefighting foam cases in all 50 states. Our lawyers are focused on six types of claims:

Ulcerative colitis
Liver cancer
Kidney cancer
Testicular cancer
Thyroid disease/hypothyroidism
Thyroid cancer

Every claim has potential statute of limitations concerns and a global settlement may sneak up on us before we know it. So call our AFFF firefighting foam lawyers today to get your claim moving toward settlement. Call 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

Latest AFFF Class Action Lawsuit Update (2024)

December 12, 2024: New Lawsuits Continue to Be Filed

New firefighting foam lawsuits continue to be filed in a the MDL. In one claim filed last week in the MDL, an Amanda, Ohio sued the usual cast of characters. The plaintiff, a former U.S. Navy firefighter blames his thyroid disease diagnosis to prolonged exposure to AFFF during training and firefighting operations. The lawsuit claims the defendants designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, despite knowing their toxic and bioaccumulative properties.

The complaint outlines allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defects, and fraudulent concealment. It accuses the defendants of knowingly misrepresenting the safety of their products and failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions to users. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses, as well as injunctive relief to address the ongoing risks associated with PFAS exposure.

December 2, 2024: Update on MDL Case Count

As of December 2, 2024, there are 7,370 cases pending in the AFFF firefighting foam MDL. 2 months ago there were over 9,000 pending cases in the MDL. The recent decrease is from the dismissal of the water contamination cases that were covered by the global settlement in August 2023.

November 26, 2024: How Punitive Damages Push an AFFF Settlement

One reason we believe there will be a global AFFF settlement before a bellwether trial is the significant risk of punitive damages. Manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, like DuPont and 3M, have decades of documented misconduct that could be seen as reckless and deliberate by juries.

Over 60 years ago, DuPont instructed its workers to handle AFFF with extreme care, acknowledging their inherent dangers. By the 1970s, 3M discovered PFAS contamination in fish near its plants, signaling clear environmental harm. In the 1980s, DuPont removed all female employees from a PFAS production facility after multiple workers gave birth to children with severe deformities—an implicit admission of the chemicals’ risks.

It is hard to argue these do anything other than paint a picture of corporate behavior driven by profit rather than public safety. While companies quietly took measures to protect their own liability and employees (and I guess they get some modicum of credit for the latter), they failed to warn the public or mitigate the chemicals’ impact on the environment and surrounding communities.

This decades-long pattern of prioritizing profits over people could inflame juries, increasing the likelihood of punitive damages designed to punish and deter such egregious conduct. Faced with this substantial financial and reputational risk, PFAS manufacturers may find a global settlement far more appealing than allowing these cases to go before a jury.

November 24, 2024: Insurance Disputes Intensify in AFFF Litigation

The growing complexity of insurance disputes is becoming a key subplot in the AFFF MDL. A recent ruling in South Carolina highlights the ongoing battle between corporate defendants like BASF and their insurers over coverage for legal defense and settlement costs. The MDL judge dismissed one case involving BASF and remanded another to New York. As defendants face mounting litigation costs, securing insurance coverage remains critical, but insurers are aggressively resisting claims. Will this delay AFFF settlements? Probably not but the more certainty when settling from the defense perspective, the better.

November 21, 2024: Litigation Wears on Defendants

Defendants want to drag out litigation as long as they can. But after years of protracted litigation, defendants in the AFFF lawsuits seem fatigued. The lengthy discovery process, mounting legal fees, and steady stream of new firefighting foam lawsuits are creating internal pressure within companies like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours. This fatigue could encourage more meaningful settlement offers to avoid the uncertainty of jury trials in the coming year.

November 15, 2024: MDL Sheds Cases

The number of cases pending in the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL decreased by 2,800 in the month of October. This marks the first monthly decrease since the MDL began. This is almost certainly the result of the dismissal of water contamination cases that were covered by last year’s settlement.

November 14, 2024: October 2025 Trial Date

We now have a trial date for the Tier 2 Group A bellwether trials, which is set to begin on October 6, 2025. So, what’s next?

The immediate focus will be on whether the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses will be allowed to testify, a decision that hinges on overcoming Daubert challenges raised by the defense. In a Daubert challenge, the court assesses the plaintiffs’ experts to ensure their testimony is both relevant to the case and based on scientifically reliable methods.

The overarching question is when do the defendants want to settle this case? Before or after Daubert? For defendants, the upside of waiting until after Daubert is knocking out cases. But it is really unlikely that defendants win. If they pursue a global AFFF settlement before Daubert, the upside for them is that the experts have not yet been approved.

The latter strategy is probably the smarter play but 3M is the ringleader of this defense and it skews toward believing the false hope generated by its lawyers and going for broke.

November 1, 2024: Progress Towards First Trial (October 6, 2025) Being Made

The court has issued a new case management order for the personal injury bellwether trial pool cases, laying out the timeline for discovery, expert witness disclosures, and trial preparations. This gives us a clearer picture of the path ahead to push these cases closer to trial and, hopefully, a global AFFF settlement before that first trial.

For Tier 2 Group A cases, the parties will continue fact-finding efforts until December 16, 2024, with strict limits on additional discovery requests. They will also coordinate non-party depositions during this period. After the discovery phase, both plaintiffs and defendants will exchange expert witness reports, with expert depositions set to conclude by May 14, 2025. The trial date for the first Group A cases is scheduled for October 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, the parties will negotiate which Group A cases should proceed to trial, with decisions on trial designations and motions due by April 2025. Any summary judgment or Daubert motions must be filed by June 6, 2025, with responses and replies due by July. (We explain Daubert motions in the September 1 update below.)

For Group B cases, fact discovery will extend through March 17, 2025, and the parties will submit expert exchange schedules for thyroid and ulcerative colitis claims by December 2024.

October 28, 2024: CMO #31 for Plaintiff Disclosures

Judge Richard Gergel issued Case Management Order No. 31 (CMO 31) on October 15, 2024. This order introduces new requirements and schedules for submitting a Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF). The PPF is designed to provide a detailed supplement to the existing Plaintiff Fact Sheets, particularly for cases involving personal injury due to AFFF exposure. Plaintiffs are required to identify at least one exposure location and provide all relevant non-privileged documents, including medical records.

The order requires that law firms representing plaintiffs in the MDL file PPFs electronically through a designated portal vendor. Deadlines for submitting PPFs vary by the number of plaintiffs a law firm represents, ranging from 60 days for smaller firms to 150 days for larger ones. Notably, plaintiffs alleging “Turnout Gear” exposure are exempt from this PPF but must complete a separate Turnout Gear fact sheet.

The court emphasizes, and every plaintiff should keep in the front of their mind, that compliance with PPF requirements is essential, with non-compliance potentially leading to case dismissals. These dismissals are generally without prejudice, but multiple dismissals can result in a dismissal with prejudice, barring further claims on the matter. So if you are already in the litigation, make sure you are communicating with your lawyer if there is any question about whether your fact sheets are completed.

October 23, 2024: New Navy Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a plaintiff from Boerne, Texas, is seeking damages in the MDL, alleging injury from exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) products manufactured by multiple companies, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont. The plaintiff claims that repeated exposure to AFFF during a U.S. Navy career led to a diagnosis of thyroid cancer and other serious health issues due to the deadly bioaccumulative and carcinogenic properties of PFAS compounds within the foam.

October 5, 2024 – Expert Deadline

Key deadlines are approaching in the PFAS litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will outline their experts’ opinions on the link between PFAS chemicals and cancer, providing detailed scientific evidence to support their claims. These initial reports, due on Tuesday, will be crucial in shaping the direction of the case.

Once submitted, these expert reports will face what is known as a Daubert challenge, where the defense will argue that the plaintiffs’ scientific testimony does not meet the required standards of reliability and relevance. If the judge finds the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence credible and sound, it can be admitted in court. In the unlikely even the defense successfully argues that the methodology is flawed or not widely accepted in the scientific community, the judge could limit or exclude the experts’ testimony altogether.

If the judge rules, as we expect, that the science supporting these claims is sound, it will significantly increase settlement pressure on the defense. We continue to believe that the defendants will wisely avoid a trial and will make a real settlement offer to resolve the majority of these claims before letting that happen.

September 19, 2024 – New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

A North Carolina man has filed a new lawsuit in the MDL yesterday against the usual cast of character alleging that their AFFF products, which contain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, caused him to develop kidney cancer.

The plaintiff, a resident of Elizabethtown, North Carolina, claims that he was exposed to these toxic chemicals while working as a firefighter during training exercises in Virginia. Additionally, he alleges that the defendants’ fluorochemical products contaminated the water supply in Virginia, where he consumed water for years.

The lawsuit names several manufacturers and distributors of AFFF, including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others, accusing them of negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment of the risks associated with PFAS. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants knew or should have known about the health risks posed by these chemicals, which are bio-persistent and linked to cancer, yet failed to provide adequate warnings. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries, medical expenses, and other related losses.

September 11, 2024 – New Case Management Order on Witnesses

A new case management order this week is designed to manage how depositions of certain trial witnesses will take place in the upcoming Tier Two Personal Injury Bellwether Trials. The key issue here is that during the earlier stages of the case (fact discovery), not all potential witnesses were deposed, meaning their testimony hasn’t been gathered yet.

So the order says that if either side in the trial adds a witness to their trial list who wasn’t previously deposed, the other side has the right to request a deposition of that witness. They need to make this request within 14 days of receiving the witness list.

September 9, 2024: Telomer Water Provider Trial Date

The first Telomer Water Provider lawsuit is scheduled to begin on March 3, 2025.

The Telomer cases are unique because the foams involved were produced through a process called telomerization, supposedly resulting in lower PFAS levels compared to other products. These cases were excluded from last year’s major settlement with 3M and others, which resolved many water contamination claims, making them a key focus in the MDL now.

Why do you care about this if you are a firefighter bringing a cancer claim? It matter to firefighter cancer lawsuits because the Telomer cases are drawing a lot of attention and resources that could otherwise be directed toward individual firefighter claims. Once these Telomer cases are resolved, likely through a settlement before the trial, there will be more focus on individual claims that our attorneys are focused on in this litigation.

September 3, 2024 – MDL Adds 500 New Cases in August

After dropping over 300 cases in July, the AFFF class action MDL added over 500 new cases during the month August. The total number of pending cases is now up to 9,576.

September 1, 2024 – Daubert

In the AFFF firefighting foam litigation, Daubert challenges will be key and we should win them easily. These motions focus on whether the scientific evidence presented by plaintiffs is admissible. These motions determine if expert testimony linking PFAS chemicals in AFFF to specific health conditions, such as cancer, meets the required standards of scientific reliability. Defendants will argue that the plaintiffs’ expert opinions are speculative or based on insufficient data, seeking to exclude these testimonies to weaken the plaintiffs’ case. That will be a tough argument in these Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases.

One significant Daubert issue involves proving causation—specifically, whether exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF directly caused diseases like kidney, testicular, or prostate cancer. For example, in some earlier motions, defendants sought to dismiss expert testimony that connected PFAS exposure to contaminated water sources. However, courts have denied several such motions, allowing the plaintiffs’ causation experts to proceed. This likely foreshadows the rulings to come.

August 22, 2024 – New Study on AFFF Water Contamination

A new study from a town in Washington state has found evidence showing that the regular use of AFFF firefighting foam by the military over several decades has caused widespread and significant PFAS contamination of local water supplies. The study, conducted by a research team from the University of Arizona, found that individuals who lived near a military base in Airway Heights, Washington, all high abnormally high PFAS levels in their blood.

Every day the picture of the harm caused by AFFF gets more vivid.

August 6, 2024 – New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

In a new AFFF lawsuit, Zub v. 3M Company et al., the plaintiff brings a wrongful death and survival action. Her husband, who worked as a firefighter and hazardous materials technician for Union County, New Jersey, was regularly exposed to aqueous film-forming foams during his career.

As a firefighter, he utilized AFFF in both training and emergency situations, unaware of the dangers posed by PFAS. The plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to these toxic substances led to her husband’s development of kidney cancer, ultimately resulting in his tragic death at the age of 35.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants knowingly designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, while failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding their safe use. The suit asserts that the defendants were aware of the hazardous nature of PFAS but concealed this information, preventing the decedent and others from recognizing the risks. This fraudulent concealment and negligence in product design and safety measures are central to the allegations.

July 22, 2024: Nine Bellwethers Picked

Judge Gergel selected nine out of eleven cases proposed by the plaintiffs for the list of cases to go to trial first. These cases involve Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis, all allegedly linked to exposure to aqueous film forming foam.

So in a big win for plaintiffs, the court mostly followed the path plaintiffs proposed in the July 17 update below.

The defendants had proposed a different set of eleven cases, emphasizing what they incorrectly claimed was a more representative pool in terms of gender, age, and exposure period.

July 17, 2024: New Strategy Aims To Reduce Burden On Court

Lawyers for victims have made a great proposal to push the AFFF lawsuits along. They suggest selecting kidney and testicular cancer cases from Pennsylvania and thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis cases from Colorado. This strategy aims to reduce the burden on the court and parties by focusing on specific sites and minimizing the number of required depositions, expert reports, and evidence.

To settle these lawsuits, we need as many trial dates as possible. The defendants will oppose this, but it will be transparent that they just want to stall moving forward with trials.

July 11, 2024: Former Georgia Firefighter Files AFFF Lawsuit

A new AFFF lawsuit was filed yesterday on behalf of a Georgia man who was diagnosed with kidney cancer. He was a firefighter who served in the United States Navy at Memphis Naval Station in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1989 through 2023.

During his service, the plaintiff routinely used Class B foam and wore firefighting gear (turnouts) that contained PFAS-containing materials. As a result of prolonged exposure to PFAS, the plaintiff has been diagnosed with kidney cancer and is currently receiving treatment for this condition. The lawsuit alleges that the use of PFAS-containing materials in firefighting activities led to his kidney cancer.

June 27, 2024: New Study Provides New Tool For AFFF Lawsuits

A new study helps us better understand how PFAS interact with human skin. The researchers utilized in vitro 3D human skin equivalent models to analyze the absorption of 17 different PFAS when applied to the skin. They found that shorter-chain PFAS had higher absorption rates and that absorption decreased with increasing carbon chain length of the compounds.

Notably, while longer-chain PFAS were not absorbed directly into the skin, a substantial portion of these chemicals was retained within the skin tissue, which could potentially be released into the body over time. The study also highlighted the influence of physicochemical properties on the dermal permeation of PFAS, showing a clear inverse correlation between the lipophilicity of the substances and their absorption through the skin.

For plaintiffs’ experts in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, this study provides a potent new tool. The detailed analysis of PFAS absorption through the skin confirms that dermal exposure to these chemicals can contribute significantly to the body burden of PFAS.

This is particularly relevant in cases where plaintiffs have been exposed to firefighting foams containing PFAS. It provides a scientifically supported pathway of exposure that can link PFAS-containing products directly to all of the problems these firefighters are having. This evidence strengthens claims that manufacturers like 3M should have known about and warned against the risks associated with dermal exposure to PFAS.

June 23, 2024: Former Alabama Firefighter Joins MDL

A new firefighting foam lawsuit was filed on Friday in the MDL on behalf of an Alabama man. A career firefighter, he regularly used and was directly exposed to AFFF. As a result of this exposure, Plaintiff alleges was diagnosed with leukemia.

May 16, 2024: AFFF Lawyers Drill Down On Six Specific Conditions

Our AFFF lawyers are now drilling down on six specific conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease/hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.

May 7, 2024: Rough Outline Set Forth For Schedules And Procedures

CMO 26C directed the parties to devise a process for selecting plaintiffs for initial personal injury and wrongful death bellwether trials and preparing for those trials. Last night, the parties set forth a rough outline of the procedures and schedules for selecting and managing two groups of plaintiffs from a pool of 25 alleging four types of injuries:

kidney cancer
testicular cancer
thyroid disease
ulcerative colitis.

It sets forth a staggered schedule for discovery, expert testimony, motion practice, and trial preparations for these groups, aiming to efficiently handle the complex issues and extensive negotiations involved in the litigation.

Here is the schedule:

**Proposed Dates for Case Management Order 26D**
Event	Group A Dates	Group B Dates
Extension of Tier 1 Discovery	June 4, 2024 to June 18, 2024	N/A
Proposals for Bellwether Trial Pool Composition	By July 2, 2024	By July 2, 2024
Additional Fact Discovery (Tier 2 Discovery)	July 16, 2024 to October 16, 2024	July 16, 2024 to December 16, 2024
Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness Exchanges	By November 15, 2024	By May 12, 2025
Defendants’ Expert Witness Exchanges	By December 20, 2024	By June 16, 2025
Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Expert Witness Exchanges	By January 10, 2025	By June 30, 2025
Completion of Expert Depositions	By February 14, 2025	By July 31, 2025
Summary Judgment/Daubert Motions Filed	By March 6, 2025

May 6, 2024: CMO Proposal Submission Deadline Arrives

Today is the new deadline for AFFF foam lawyers on both sides to submit their proposals for a Case Management Order regarding Tier 2 Personal Injury Bellwether proceedings. This follows two granted extensions from the original deadlines.

A lot of people are eager to see which diseases will make it into Tier 2.

April 10, 2024: Joint Motion Requests CMO Deadline Extension

AFFF lawyers on both sides submitted a joint motion requesting a brief extension for the submission of a proposed Case Management Order. This request pertains specifically to the Tier 2 Personal Injury Bellwether proceedings.

According to the requirements set forth in CMO #26(C), the parties involved are obligated to present a proposed Case Management Order related to Tier 2 Personal Injury Bellwether proceedings. This submission is due no later than eight weeks prior to the conclusion of the Tier 1 Discovery period, with the current deadline being yesterday.

The motion jointly filed by the parties seeks an additional fifteen days beyond the original deadline, proposing a new deadline of April 24, 2024, for the submission of the proposed Case Management Order. The request for this extension stems from a mutual desire among the parties to negotiate and potentially reach a consensus on the terms and conditions outlined within the proposed order, aimed at guiding the subsequent Tier 2 Personal Injury Bellwether proceedings.

Normally, plaintiffs’ attorneys oppose all delays in the AFFF personal injury and wrongful death claims. However, this will not impede or alter any existing deadlines within the litigation timeline. The extension is sought purely to enhance the quality and feasibility of the agreement regarding the Tier 2 proceedings without affecting the progression of other scheduled milestones in the case.

April 4, 2024: Joint Motion Seeks To Streamline Management Of Diseases Not Covered By CMO 26

From the start of this litigation, there has been debate over which diseases belong in the AFFF litigation.

Right now, it is free for all. Understandably. Because the science is still evolving. But at some point very soon, the field needs to narrow, and there needs to be a plan to deal fairly with those cases that do not make the cut for the MDL, even though they very well may be viable claims.

A joint motion filed today in the firefighting foam lawsuit aims to streamline the management and adjudication of individual personal injury cases not covered under Case Management Order (CMO) 26. Specifically, it seeks to:

Identify diseases linked to AFFF exposure not covered in CMO 26 for both parties to the present peer-reviewed studies supporting or disputing these diseases’ association with AFFF by set deadlines.
Facilitate a Science Day, where experts will present evidence regarding the claimed disease associations without the involvement of counsel in questioning, ensuring a focused, scientific examination of the claims. Frustratingly, for all of this talk of Science Day, we do not have a date for Science Day. All of the deadlines are predicated on Science Day. So the most important thing about this event is that it happens.
Discuss the selection of bellwether cases for diseases identified, aiming to follow an agreed order or, failing that, competing proposals to be submitted 60 days post-Science Day. This is what gets us trial dates and puts real pressure on the defendants to settle.
Convene to outline plans for Daubert and dispositive motions, incorporating these strategies into the CMO for the identified diseases.
Impose specific requirements on plaintiffs asserting claims not listed or covered by previous CMOs, providing a structured timeline for either dismissing these “unlisted claims” without prejudice or advancing them by submitting comprehensive medical records and expert reports within specified periods. It puts some pressure on the plaintiffs to produce experts and such, but it will also protect them from statute of limitations problems when their cases are dismissed so they can refile.

I remain convinced that the defendants will do what it takes to avoid these cases going to trial. So what we need is a trial date.

March 21, 2024: New CMO Outlines Path To Science Day

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 an 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 of 60 days post-Science Day to propose how these representative cases will be chosen, guided by previous court directives.

The take-home message of all of this? We are not getting AFFF lawsuit trial dates in 2024.

March 6, 2024: Court Focuses More On Turnout Gear Claims

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 26, 2024: Former Nevada Firefighter Joins MDL

A new firefighting foam lawsuit was transferred into the MDL last week. A Nevada man who was a state-certified firefighter was exposed to AFFF from 1992 to 1997. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2021. His AFFF lawsuit, filed in Nevada state court, has been removed to the MDL.

February 25, 2024: New Research Links Elevated PFAS Levels To Diets

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 23, 2024: Chemical Manufacturers Seek To Transfer Lawsuit To Federal Court

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.

Setting aside the merits of whether this case belongs in state or federal court, this case should not be added to the AFFF MDL. We need more focus on the firefighting foam lawsuits, not less.

February 16, 2024: Plaintiff’s Lawyers and BASF Enter Into Tolling Agreement

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and BASF entered into a tolling agreement this week in nine AFFF cases.

What is a tolling agreement? A tolling agreement is a legal arrangement where parties agree to suspend or extend the statute of limitations on a claim, essentially pausing the countdown that limits the time to bring a lawsuit. In the context of an MDL, tolling agreements are often used to streamline pretrial proceedings by allowing parties to focus on negotiations or settlement discussions without the pressure of impending deadlines, ensuring that claims are not dismissed due to the expiration of statutory time limits while the MDL process is ongoing.

February 8, 2024: Diseases Most Tied To AFFF

As we get (hopefully) closer to the finish line, we want to bring some clarity on which diseases we think are best linked to AFFF. Here are the firefighting foam lawsuits we think the science best supports, along with the strongest cases in terms of exposure:

Injury	Minimum Time Between First Exposure and Diagnosis	5 or More Exposures Over This Time Period
Kidney Cancer	15 years (less for aggressive types of cancer)	5 years
Testicular Cancer	15 years (less for aggressive types of cancer)	5 years
Thyroid Disease: Hypo and Hyperthyroidism, Hashimoto’s disease	2 years	2 years
Ulcerative Colitis	2 years	2 years

Of course, it does not have to fit perfectly into this criterion. I’m just trying to give you an idea of what we think are the most compelling facts and patterns in this litigation.

The evidence is incredibly strong in these cases. I would bet on a first-year lawyer with a basic understanding of the rules of evidence at trial over the best lawyer 3M and DuPont have to offer in one of these cases.

Behind these claims are pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, male breast cancer, bladder cancer, and liver cancer. We are actively taking these cases and think they are strong enough to go to trial and we think plaintiffs will win these cases in front of a jury. That should induce meaningful settlements in these lawsuits.

We think other types of cancer may also receive AFFF compensation payouts when there is a settlement. Because of the severity of the injury, you may also receive higher compensation in the second tier than the first tier in some cases.

February 5, 2024: 3M Co.’s Proposal To Settle With Public Water Systems Praised By Federal Judge

The federal judge overseeing the case praised the effort leading to 3M Co.’s proposal to settle with public water systems for at least $10.5 billion, addressing liability concerns and aiding approximately 12,000 public water systems in removing PFAS contaminants.

Why this is relevant in the AFFF lawsuits is because of the judge’s interest in the fear of 3M’s potential bankruptcy due to the magnitude and scope of PFAS claims. We will see these concerns again in settlement negotiations in the AFFF personal injury and wrongful death firefighting foam lawsuits. 3M used the fear of bankruptcy in negotiations in the earplug litigation and will play this card again as the parties get closer to a settlement in this litigation. 3M has about one-fifth of the value it had in 2018. But it is still worth $50 billion, and that is a lot of billions. It can pay its fair share of an AFFF settlement.

December 12, 2023: AFFF Lawyers Submit Joint Motion Memorializing Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool

AFFF lawyers jointly submitted a motion memorializing the Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool this morning. The pool consists of twenty-five plaintiffs. This group includes five individuals claiming kidney cancer, eight alleging testicular cancer, eight with claims of hypothyroidism/thyroid disease, and four asserting cases of ulcerative colitis.

This agreement is part of a bellwether discovery process designed to push toward AFFF personal injury and wrongful death trials. The parties have agreed to waive their Lexecon rights, which we explain in our December 5th update below, specifically for these selected cases, a waiver that applies only to the individual plaintiff selected as a Personal Injury Tier One Plaintiff.

December 6, 2023: Judge Gergel Takes Closer Look At AFFF Lawsuit Illnesses

Judge Gergel is taking a closer look at the current inventory of AFFF lawsuits, looking to figure out where this litigation is going and what the scope of the cancers attributable to firefighting foam will ultimately be. The majority of these personal injury and wrongful death claims in the AFFF class action lawsuit are related to illnesses beyond the four conditions currently under the court’s review: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

To assess the legitimacy of these additional cases, Judge Gergel has directed several actions to be completed within 60 days, including cataloging all plaintiff cases alleging diseases other than the four specified, submitting all peer-reviewed scientific studies regarding the association with other diseases, and planning a ‘science day’ for experts to debate the purported links between these other diseases and exposure to AFFF-contaminated water.

December 5, 2023: MDL Judge Issues Case Management Order 26B To Help Kickstart The Path To Trial

The MDL judge issued Case Management Order #CMO 26B yesterday, which will help kickstart the path to trial and hopefully kickstart the path to a global AFFF settlement next year. Here’s a simplified explanation:

The main point of CMO 26B is to outline how to choose certain plaintiffs (the people who are suing) for a group called the “Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool.” This group is important because the cases in it help us understand how the rest of the similar cases might go. Big verdicts lead to larger settlements, so getting the right cases to trial first is critical.

By December 11, 2023, the parties involved in the lawsuit (both the plaintiffs and the defendants) need to give the court a list. This list should include:

The lawyers represent the plaintiffs.

All the defendants in each case, along with their lawyers.

Confirmation that everyone agrees to waive their “Lexecon,” right? What is a Lexecon waiver? A Lexecon waiver refers to a legal agreement where parties in a class action lawsuit voluntarily give up their right to have their case returned to the original court for trial. This waiver allows the case to be tried in the court where the MDL class action is consolidated, in this case, South Carolina.

A summary of what injury or injuries the plaintiff claims to have and where the exposure or incident occurred

References to legal documents (like the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s defense statements).

If there’s disagreement about including a certain plaintiff in this group, both sides need to explain why they think that plaintiff should or should not be included.

The court will pick 28 plaintiffs from this list in the “Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool.” These selected cases will follow specific rules mentioned in other parts of the CMO.

From there, we go to “Tier 1 Discovery,” where both sides use pretrial discovery—depositions, requests for documents, etc.—to obtain more information from the other side.

AFFF lawyers will discuss and agree on how to do this and report back to the court next week.

November 28, 2023: Three “Suggestion Of Death” Notices Filed In AFFF MDL

Water contamination lawsuits have frustratingly dominated the AFFF class action docket over the last few weeks. Highlighting the severe consequences of delay, three “Suggestion of Death” notices were filed in the MDL, indicating that three plaintiffs have passed away while awaiting justice.

A “Suggestion of Death” notice in a lawsuit is a formal legal notification that informs the court and other parties involved in the litigation that a party to the lawsuit has passed away. The notice of death triggers the process of substituting the deceased party with an appropriate representative, usually the executor, personal representative, or administrator of the deceased’s estate and their surviving family members, converting the lawsuit to a survival action and/or wrongful death lawsuit.

November 1, 2023: Parties To Select Cases To Be Included In Bellwether Discovery Pool

This month, the parties will select the cases included in the bellwether discovery pool for the AFFF personal injury cases. According to Case Management Order 26A (issued last month), the parties have until November 14, 2023, to exchange their proposed lists of plaintiffs who will be selected as bellwether candidates. These plaintiffs will then go through case-specific fact discovery, after which a handful of them will be selected for the actual personal injury bellwether trials.

October 24, 2023: New Study Finds Link Between PFOS And Thyroid Cancer

Individuals with elevated concentrations of a particular PFAS, called linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have a heightened likelihood of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, as indicated by a study soon to be released in eBioMedicine, a publication of the Lancet. This research found a 56% increased risk of thyroid cancer among those with higher levels of linear PFOS.

October 5, 2023: New Study Provides Strong Link Between AFFF And Testicular Cancer

This study is the strongest proof yet of the link between testicular cancer and AFFF. We had plenty of evidence already, though. This is like shooting a person who has already been shot five times.

August 20, 2023: Recent Study Links AFFF To Testicular Cancer

A recent study confirms what AFFF lawyers getting calls from victims have long understood: AFFF may elevate the risk of testicular cancer.

August 18, 2023: Former Airforce Firefighter Joins AFFF MDL

A new AFFF lawsuit, Jones v. 3M, et al., was directly filed last week in the AFFF MDL in South Carolina against the usual cast of characters.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old Texas man, was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter with the Air Force. He alleges that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer from AFFF exposure, which has caused Plaintiff to undergo a prostatectomy.

His lawsuit seeks compensation for his pain, suffering, and other damages.

August 1, 2023: Judge Grants Unopposed Motion To Substitute Plaintiff

Judge Gergel granted an unopposed motion to substitute plaintiffs after an Alabama plaintiff died. The man’s daughter is now the plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit. It is a stark reminder that many plaintiffs in this litigation may never see their settlements.

June 5, 2023: Joint Motion To Delay Trial Granted

Yesterday, the Plaintiff Leadership Committee in the AFFF class action lawsuit and 3M, the biggest defendant, filed a joint motion to delay the trial slated to begin today. The one-page motion says that the parties are engaged in negotiations and are close to resolution, and the attorneys believe that devoting their efforts toward settlement, as opposed to proceeding with trial preparations, is the most advisable course of action. This morning, the MDL Judge granted the motion and gave the parties a 3-week postponement of the trial date. This development follows the recent speculation of a 3M’s offer worth $10 billion to settle the claims made by the municipalities.

This is all well and good for what the municipality claims. Our focus is on individual victims, and taking a trial to a verdict might be the best thing for those victims who have suffered from AFFF. But the hope is that payouts in the municipalities’ lawsuits will lead to individual AFFF settlements for firefighters and others suffering from exposure to PFAS.

June 2, 2023: Three Leading Companies To Create Billion Dollar Settlement Fund

Three leading companies, The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, and Corteva, have reached a preliminary agreement to address PFAS-related drinking water claims involving public water systems. Together, they will create a $1.185 billion settlement fund, which will be divided based on their agreed contributions. The settlement is pending the final approval of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The deal excludes specific water systems.

May 28, 2023: Environmental Working Group Estimates $30 Billion PFAS Clean Up

A new report from the Environmental Working Group estimates that it will likely cost over $30 billion for the U.S. government to fully clean up the PFAS contamination around over 50 military bases after years of using AFFF firefighting foam during training exercises. If not addressed, the PFAS contamination at these military installations could pollute local water supply systems. So far, however, the Department of Defense has only allocated $1.4 billion to cover the cleanup costs.

May 24, 2023: EPA’s Proposed PFAS Limits To Be Admitted As Evidence

The EPA’s proposed limits on PFAS in drinking water will be admitted as evidence in the first trial AFFF lawsuit brought by the City of Stuart, Florida. The defendants unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the inclusion of the EPA’s limits, which they argue are provisional and not indicative of the knowledge gained during the production period. This is strong evidence for the jury and increases the likelihood that the first lawsuit to go forward with this class action will result in a successful verdict for the plaintiff.

March 30, 2023: AFFF Motions Filled Ahead Of Bellwether Trial

Thought on the AFFF motions in limine that have been filed ahead of the bellwether AFFF trial.

March 7, 2023: Former Marine Files AFFF Lawsuit

A new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed this month. The plaintiff in Kent v. 3M is a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas, man. He was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps. This exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy. His firefighting foam lawsuit alleges he suffered personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the result of his exposure to fluorochemical products.

Plaintiff attorneys filed this complaint in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3, issued by Judge Richard M. Gergel. Judge Gergel is the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, which houses all federal AFFF suits. Under this order, the plaintiff designated the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case. His AFFF lawsuit asks that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Texas because the events or omissions leading to the claim occurred in Texas.

February 3, 2023: Information on Statute Of Limitations

Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitation deadline to file a lawsuit bars their claim. They correctly assume that the statute of limitations for filing an AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) lawsuit is typically 2-3 years from the date of injury in most states.

But most states have a discovery rule that is critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit. What is the discovery rule? It is an exception to the statute of limitations that delays its running until the plaintiff knows, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known, of both the injury and its cause. In other words, the time limit for filing a personal injury lawsuit does not start until the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury and its connection to the defendant’s negligence.

The statute of limitations and discovery rule are complicated, with scores of exceptions. But many victims looking to file an AFFF lawsuit call us believing they likely do not have a claim in 2024 when they absolutely do.

January 12, 2023: Occupational Medicine Reports Firefighters 60% More Likely To Die Of Cancer

A new study in the journal Occupational Medicine reports that firefighters are 60% more likely to die of cancer than the general population. The death rate for prostate cancer was four times higher, leukemia was three times higher, and kidney cancer was double the rate in the overall population. The researchers made the obvious point that carcinogenic chemicals in AFFF may be a primary contributing factor.

November 1, 2022: Retired Judge Layn Phillips Appointed Settlement Mediator

With the first bellwether trial set for 2024, a court-appointed settlement mediator has now been assigned to “facilitate and encourage” global settlement discussions between both sides. The mediator, retired judge Layn Phillips, will face a complex task given that the AFFF litigation involves cancer claims by individual firefighters and claims by local municipalities for contamination of the water supply.

An AFFF settlement will be a Herculean task because of the different types of claims—some are individual, and some are entire communities. Additional defendants will also have different views of what an appropriate AFFF settlement should look like. But there is the possibility of some AFFF settlements from this effort, which would be in everyone’s best interest. Let’s see how these AFFF settlement talks go. The water contamination cases are likely to settle first. Why? Because those cases have the first trial date.

Firefighting Foam (AFFF) Class Action Lawsuit

Aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) is used to extinguish fires and is commonly referred to as firefighting foam. It was recently discovered that prolonged use or exposure to certain chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can cause cancer. Anyone regularly exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently diagnosed with kidney, pancreatic, prostate, or testicular cancer may be able to file an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit and get financial compensation.

All AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits in federal courts have been consolidated into a “class action” MDL in the District of South Carolina. As of August 2022, over 2,500 plaintiffs with firefighting foam cancer lawsuits are pending in the AFFF MDL. After bellwether test trials, the AFFF class action MDL will hopefully end in a global settlement.

AFFF Firefighting Foam Causes Cancer

AFFF (“aqueous film-forming foam”) is a sprayable foam specifically designed to extinguish high-intensity fires fueled by accelerants such as gasoline. The active chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam belong to a family of chemicals known as PFAS (poly-fluoroalkyl substances).

PFAS are a unique group of chemicals that are highly resistant to extreme heat and are not broken down by oil or water. Unfortunately, their indestructible nature means that they do not biodegrade or break down in the environment. These substances are marked by several extraordinarily robust and enduring carbon-fluorine bonds. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because of their remarkable persistence in the environment and strong resistance to both metabolic and environmental degradation.

Over the last decade, an emerging body of scientific research has established that chronic exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can cause certain types of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency published a health advisory in 2016 noting that animal studies showed that prolonged exposure to PFAS resulted in kidney and testicular cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conducted several studies that found that human exposure to PFAS results in a significantly increased kidney, prostate, and testicular cancer rate.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society have reached the same conclusion, listing the chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam as human carcinogens.

Exposure to AFFF Firefighting Foam and PFAS

Anyone regularly exposed to AFFF firefighting foam over long periods is potentially at risk of developing cancer from PFAS. Chronic exposure to PFAS in AFFF firefighting foam can occur in two ways: (1) occupational exposure to AFFF and (2) PFAS contamination in drinking water.

Occupational AFFF Exposure

Individuals who worked in specific jobs or professions where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used (either by themselves directly or by people around them) have what is considered “occupational exposure” to PFAS from firefighting foam.

Firefighters who regularly used AFFF or conducted training exercises with AFFF firefighting foam are the most obvious examples of individuals with occupational exposure and represent most of the victims in the AFFF class action lawsuit.

Since the late 1960s or early 1970s, the U.S. military has deployed MilSpec AFFF at military bases, airfields, and Navy vessels. These are places where fuel fires are not just possible but likely and potentially catastrophic. The military uses this substance to train its personnel, extinguish fires, save lives, and safeguard property, but the people using these products did not know they were being exposed to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals present in AFFF.

Beyond the military, other individuals who might have had occupational exposure to AFFF firefighting foam include those working in environments where AFFF was used extensively, disposed of, or even produced. For instance, commercial airports, where fuel fires are a common risk, frequently use firefighting foam during safety and emergency response training exercises. Similarly, industrial facilities, especially those dealing with flammable substances, also regularly use AFFF as part of their fire safety protocols.

Our lawyers are seeing a lot of Navy AFFF lawsuits

Groundwater PFAS Exposure

The other category of people with chronic exposure to PFAS from AFFF firefighting foam would be individuals who consumed drinking water contaminated with PFAS. Hundreds and possibly thousands, of residential areas across the country had groundwater highly contaminated with PFAS from firefighting foam.

Many residential locations with groundwater contaminated by PFAS are near military bases or airports where AFFF firefighting foam was regularly used. The PFAS in the firefighting foam eventually seeped through the soil and entered the water table.

Cancers Caused by AFFF Firefighting Foam

Scientific research has determined that chronic exposure to AFFF firefighting foam (both occupational exposure and groundwater contamination exposure) can cause increased rates of specific types of cancer. The types of cancer that have been linked to AFFF exposure include:

Kidney cancer
Bladder cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Liver Cancer
Breast Cancer
Leukemia (and other blood cancers)
Prostate cancer
Ovarian cancer
Testicular cancer
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

As the AFFF firefighting foam litigation has evolved, our law firm has refined its focus to six specific types of claims, reflecting the strongest scientific evidence connecting these conditions to PFAS exposure. We are currently accepting cases involving ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease or hypothyroidism, and thyroid cancer. These conditions have been shown to have the most significant links to exposure from AFFF, as established through research and the ongoing litigation.

Does this mean these other conditions are not related to AFFF? Absolutely not. We are talking about the current state of the science and what plaintiffs’ lawyers can prove. Many studies continue to explore the broader health risks associated with these chemicals, which could include other cancers and systemic conditions. But there is a gap between what we believe and what we can think our attorneys can prove with these other conditions.

How Many Plaintiffs Are in the AFFF Class Action Lawsuit?

As of November 2024, there are are nearly 10,000 pending lawsuits in the AFFF (firefighting foam) class action MDL-2873.

These lawsuits consist of both municipal water contamination cases and individual personal injury claims, with many of the latter brought by former firefighters who allege they developed cancer due to exposure to AFFF. While the exact number of cases in each category has not been specifically tracked, the majority of the current lawsuits involve personal injury or wrongful death claims related to firefighting foam exposure.

Who Are the Defendants in AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits?

The defendants named in the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are companies that manufactured and sold AFFF products. Firefighting foam has been manufactured and sold by a variety of different companies. DuPont and 3M were two of the biggest manufacturers of AFFF firefighting foam and are vital defendants in the current AFFF lawsuits.

Evidence has been uncovered that by the 1970s, manufacturers like 3M, DuPont, and others were already very aware that the PFAS in their AFFF products were potentially toxic to the environment. Moreover, these companies became aware in the 1990s that these chemicals were harmful to humans and that long-term exposure might be linked to cancer.

Settlement Amounts for AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuits

The AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits will eventually be resolved in a mass tort global settlement. In these types of settlements, the defendants contribute a large sum of money into a settlement fund to pay settlement awards to individual plaintiffs who agree to accept the settlement.

The amount of settlement compensation received by individual plaintiffs is based on a tiered ranking system. Plaintiffs with the most robust AFFF cancer cases are ranked in the top tier and receive the highest settlement payouts. Plaintiffs with weaker claims are ranked in lower tiers and receive less compensation.

In the AFFF lawsuits, the top settlement tier will probably be for plaintiffs with long-term occupational exposure to AFFF and diagnosis with one of the more dangerous cancer types that have been linked to AFFF (e.g., prostate, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver cancer and ulcerative colitis). AFFF plaintiffs in lower settlement tiers would include people with less occupational exposure or a diagnosis of less severe types of cancer. We think the cancer cases will have the highest settlement values.

Based on settlement payouts in prior mass tort cases involving cancer, our lawyers predict that AFFF firefighting foam cases in the top settlement tier will have average settlement amounts of $300,000 to $600,000. Our estimated value for second-tier cases is $150,000 to $280,000. In some cases, the third tier may end up with settlement payouts of $75,000 or less.

It is important to remember that these are predictions, not guaranteed future AFFF settlement ranges for individual claims. We try hard to make the best settlement predictions that we can. But anyone who thinks they know when and how much AFFF settlements will be is kidding themselves.

Hopefully, we will know what the AFFF settlement offers will look like sooner rather than later. There is speculation of a settlement, at least with some of the defendants, in the first half of 2025.

Are You Eligible to Bring an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit?

Our mass tort attorneys are currently seeking AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits. For our law firm, eligible plaintiffs meet two essential criteria:

AFFF Exposure: eligible plaintiffs will need to be able to show that they were regularly exposed to PFAS from AFFF firefighting foam in an occupational setting (e.g., firefighter, airport worker, etc.) or from contaminated groundwater.
Cancer Diagnosis: plaintiffs who can prove that they were exposed to AFFF for extended periods will also need to show that they were subsequently diagnosed with one of the cancers linked to PFAS: kidney, testicular, prostate, pancreatic, liver, bladder, ovarian, etc.

AFFF Firefighting Foam Class Action Lawyers

Many people exposed to AFFF are filing lawsuits against the companies that made the foam. The lawsuits claim that the companies knew about the health risks but continued to sell the foam anyway. The lawsuits argue that the companies should be held responsible for the harm that AFFF has caused.

Our law firm is currently accepting new AFFF firefighting foam cases in all 50 states. Every case has a potential statute of limitations issue. So act now. Contact our AFFF class action lawyers today to get your case started. Call 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.