Overview of the AFFF Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2873)
Municipalities and individuals across the United States are pursuing legal action in the Aqueous Film-
Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, pending before Judge Richard Gergel
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. These lawsuits arise from the widespread
contamination caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — toxic chemicals found in
firefighting foams used for decades at military bases, airports, and industrial sites. Plaintiffs allege that
PFAS from these products have contaminated groundwater, soil, and municipal property, causing
extensive economic and environmental damage.
Federal Courts employ Multi-district Litigation (MDL) procedure to consolidate similar lawsuits before
one court. Courts do this when many similar cases are being filed in many jurisdictions. This procedure
enhances judicial economy and consistency in rulings.
Core Categories of Damage Claims Filed in the AFFF MDL
The claims filed in the AFFF multidistrict litigation reflect the broad and lasting harm caused by PFAS
contamination. Plaintiffs — including municipalities, water utilities, property owners, and individuals
— are seeking compensation for various types of damages, including personal injury, cost recovery,
environmental cleanup, and property loss.
Below is a summary of the major categories of claims being pursued:
1. Property Damage Claims
A significant portion of the litigation involves property damage resulting from the use of AFFF
firefighting foam.
Military installations, airports, and fire training facilities used these foams extensively for training and
emergency response without knowing the long-term environmental impact. As a result, PFAS chemicals
seeped into groundwater, soil, and nearby waterways, contaminating public and private lands.
Public entities and landowners seek to recover the costs associated with:
- Environmental testing and remediation of property
- Replacement of contaminated infrastructure
- Loss of property value and use
2. Public Drinking Water System Claims
Public drinking water systems have been at the forefront of the AFFF litigation. These entities face
staggering financial burdens from regulations requiring them to detect, treat, and remove PFAS from
drinking water supplies. 3M, DuPont, BASF, and Tyco have settled with public water system claims. The
settlements total more than $14 billion. More settlements are expected in the future because the court
is pushing additional defendants to settle claims.
Claims filed by water utilities seek compensation for:
- The cost of installing advanced filtration systems (such as granular activated carbon or reverse
- osmosis)
- Ongoing monitoring and testing required by state and federal regulators
- Loss of operational revenue and increased maintenance costs
These lawsuits aim to ensure that the manufacturers and suppliers of AFFF, not local taxpayers, bear
the costs of addressing PFAS contamination in public drinking water systems.
3. Wastewater and Sewerage Treatment Claims
Individuals who were exposed to PFAS through firefighting foam or contaminated drinking water —
particularly firefighters, military personnel, and residents near contamination sites — have filed
personal injury claims within the MDL.
These plaintiffs allege that PFAS exposure has caused or contributed to serious health problems,
including:
- Kidney, testicular, and liver cancers
- Thyroid disorders such as hypothyroidism
- Developmental and reproductive harm
Some claims also seek medical monitoring, allowing exposed individuals to receive ongoing health
screenings for PFAS-related diseases.
Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers such as 3M, DuPont, Tyco, Chemguard, and others knew of the risks
posed by PFAS but failed to warn users or disclose the hazards associated with their products.
Why Understanding PFAS Damage Claims Matters
Lawyers, municipal leaders, water utility managers, and affected communities need to understand the
scope of the AFFF litigation and the different cost recovery actions available to public entities. Each
claim type involves different proof requirements, valuation methodologies, and settlement structures.
As the AFFF MDL progresses, it can be expected additional settlements will include:
- Funding wastewater and sewerage treatment utilities to remove PFAS from their waste stream
- Money to test and cleanup airport property that is contaminated and potentially migrating offsite
- Funds to test and cleanup private properties contaminated by firefighting foam PFAS
- Payments to personal injury plaintiffs to compensate them for their injuries and related economic costs.
Learn More About PFAS Settlements and Municipal Claims
The attorneys at Stag Liuzza, LLC represent public water systems, municipalities, and private property
owners impacted by PFAS contamination in AFFF Lawsuits. Our team has been at the forefront of this fight since the beginning and actively participates in the AFFF MDL and related PFAS cost-recovery litigation nationwide.
To learn more about the types of settlements available or to determine whether your system qualifies
for compensation, visit our dedicated resources at CleanGroundwater.com.
