Unmasking the AFFF Lawsuit Defendants: A Deep Dive

Concerns surrounding the environmental and health impacts of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), which are integral to AFFF, have spurred a surge in legal actions targeting major corporations. It is not surprising that the use of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) in firefighting has garnered the attention that it has lately.

Recently, plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleged that they were exposed to PFAS through drinking water contaminated from local wells near a Tyco Fire Technology Center in Wisconsin, where firefighting foam had been regularly utilized until 2017.

As indicated by court papers, Johnson Controls was using Tyco Fire Products as a subsidiary for its aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). They reached a $17.5 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit and individual injury claims.

This article is a detailed examination of the key defendants and the latest updates regarding their involvement in these legal battles.

Recent Legal Updates

As of May 14, 2024, six additional “tag-along” cases have been incorporated into the AFFF firefighting foam MDL. Among these, three cases concern water contamination allegations, while the remaining three focus on personal injury claims.

Firefighting foam lawsuit cases are now part of a South Carolina “class action” MDL. As of August 2022, more than 2,500 plaintiffs with cancer lawsuits related to firefighting foam were pending in the AFFF MDL. Following bellwether trials, it is anticipated that the AFFF class action MDL will conclude with a global settlement.

According to TorHoerman Law, PFAS have been found in 5,000 communities across all states, posing a risk to 60 million Americans. Legal efforts are underway to compel PFAS manufacturers to finance extensive cleanup efforts. These measures involve installing advanced water filtration systems to remove PFAS from contaminated water supplies, which, though expensive, are essential for reducing public health risks.

The Key Defendants In These Cases

In April, the U.S. district judge in South Carolina was asked to dismiss existing lawsuits. The Department of Justice contended that the PFAS contamination cannot be attributed to the government. Plaintiffs’ lawyers criticized the move as “misguided,” arguing that dismissing the lawsuits would prolong an ongoing environmental disaster that the Pentagon contributed to.

In its motion to dismiss, the government put forward an argument that experts believe has a high chance of success, as reported by Grist. Despite the Environmental Protection Agency not yet labeling PFAS contamination as “hazardous,” the Department of Defense (DOD) asserts it is already investing billions in investigating and managing PFAS at various bases.

Consequently, military lawyers argued that the DOD should not be held liable for PFAS contamination since it voluntarily uses its cleanup authority under the Superfund Act. Both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ lawyers declined to comment due to the ongoing legal proceedings. The U.S. government remains the only defendant in the PFAS lawsuits likely to be granted immunity.

Here are some of the other defendants that have a lot to do:

·         3M

A leading manufacturer of both PFAS chemicals and AFFF products, 3M has supplied firefighting foams to various sectors for decades. The supplies include various sectors, including military bases, airports, and fire departments.

In recent years, 3M has faced numerous lawsuits alleging that its AFFF products contaminated water supplies and caused health issues such as cancer and liver damage. 3M has settled some cases but continues to fight ongoing litigation. Notably, in 2023, they agreed to a significant settlement with several states to address PFAS contamination and compensate affected communities.

·         DuPont

DuPont, a major chemical producer, has a long history of manufacturing PFAS compounds used in various products, including firefighting foams. The company has been a central figure in the PFAS controversy due to its extensive use of these chemicals and thus finds itself embroiled in multiple lawsuits.

In response to mounting legal pressure, DuPont Chemours and Corteva announced a joint $4 billion settlement in 2021 to address PFAS liabilities. However, individual lawsuits from municipalities and states seeking compensation for environmental damage and public health costs continue.

·         Chemours

Spun off from DuPont in 2015, Chemours inherited many of its predecessor’s PFAS-related liabilities. They are a major producer of fluoroproducts, including those used in AFFF.

Chemours has been actively involved in defending against PFAS lawsuits, participating in the joint settlement with DuPont and Corteva. Additionally, they have invested in remediation efforts and technologies to address PFAS contamination.

Recently, Chemours has pursued negotiations to settle additional claims and pledged to mitigate the environmental impact of PFAS.

·         Tyco Fire Products

This subsidiary of Johnson Controls is a leading provider of firefighting equipment, including AFFF containing PFAS.

Supplying products worldwide, Tyco has faced numerous lawsuits alleging widespread contamination from their products. In 2022, they settled with Wisconsin, agreeing to fund cleanup efforts. Proactive in research and development, Tyco is exploring PFAS-free alternatives to traditional AFFF products.

·         Chemguard Inc. and ChemDesign Inc.

These companies specialize in firefighting agents and chemical manufacturing, respectively. Both have been named in lawsuits for their role in PFAS contamination through the distribution and production of PFAS-containing AFFF.

While not as prominent as the larger players, they are nonetheless part of the ongoing legal discourse. Chemguard has participated in industry efforts to phase out PFAS, while ChemDesign cooperates with regulatory bodies to address PFAS issues and minimize their environmental footprint.

FAQs

Who Can File an AFFF Lawsuit?

Exposure to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foam is strongly associated with cancer risk. Individuals who have developed cancer after being exposed to these toxic firefighting foams are now pursuing legal action against AFFF manufacturers through AFFF Cancer Lawsuits.

Is AFFF Foam Banned?

California has enacted legislation prohibiting the use of PFAS compounds in firefighting foams (AFFF). This law, effective January 1, 2022, bans the manufacture, sale, and use of firefighting foams containing PFAS and also imposes restrictions on their disposal.

What Are the Symptoms of AFFF Exposure?

Exposure to the toxic chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam can lead to skin and eye irritation, resulting in itchy skin, rashes, and vision issues. Additionally, AFFF exposure may cause respiratory problems, including difficulty breathing, persistent coughing, wheezing, and chest pain.

In conclusion, the AFFF lawsuits represent a critical chapter in the ongoing fight against PFAS contamination. Companies like 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard Inc., and ChemDesign Inc. are navigating this complex space. As the litigation progresses, settlements, regulatory compliance, and the development of safer alternatives will be key areas to watch. The outcome of these lawsuits will likely have lasting implications for environmental policies and corporate accountability in the chemical industry.