Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) litigation continues to shape the legal landscape, facing both setbacks and advancements. Recent months have highlighted the complexity of such cases, with legal actions capturing headlines.
Appeals have introduced substantial delays to settlement processes, impacting numerous stakeholders. At the same time, bellwether trials are progressing and setting precedents for personal injury claims linked to PFAS exposure.
These developments are part of a broader narrative of environmental litigation, where the stakes are high and the outcomes critical. As these cases unfold, they reveal the multifaceted nature of legal battles involving large corporations and affected communities.
The results of these proceedings are keenly watched. It’s because they hold implications for public health policies and corporate accountability in the use of hazardous substances.
The Delayed Settlement
In 2018, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was established in South Carolina, per a news published in The Guardian. This MDL addresses PFAS contamination from Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF). Recently, DuPont and 3M agreed to settle lawsuits filed by public water systems (PWS) over PFAS contamination.
DuPont’s historic settlement is valued at $1.185 billion. It aims to resolve all related drinking water claims from PWS, according to the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. This settlement was officially approved early in 2024 following a final fairness hearing in December 2023.
The approval by the AFFF-MDL Court also involved certifying the settlement class under Federal Rule 23. Further, there were some objections concerning the variety in PFAS amounts and types among class members. Despite this fact, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate.
However, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has appealed this approval. Based on their earlier decision to opt out, this appeal challenges the settlement’s finalization. This move might delay the settlement’s implementation by several months or even more than a year.
The Nature of the Appeal
Plaintiffs argue that the district, by initially opting out, forfeited its right to later challenge the agreed settlement. They describe the appeal as a tactic to stall the process, labeling it as meritless. In response, they have requested $61 million from the water utility to cover the costs incurred due to this delay.
This situation highlights the legal maneuvers used in environmental litigation, where stakeholders use appeals to influence the outcomes of settlements. Besides reflecting a legal challenge, the appeal emphasizes the procedural intricacies that can prolong resolution in environmental lawsuits.
Such legal actions shape the future proceedings of related claims. It sets a precedent that might affect other similar cases in terms of how settlements are negotiated and finalized.
Advancements in Personal Injury Claims
Meanwhile, the AFFF MDL is making strides with personal injury claims linked to Leach injuries, which are associated with PFOA exposure. Diseases under this category include kidney and testicular cancers, as well as thyroid disease. Discovery has begun for 25 plaintiffs who have diseases related to these Leach injuries.
A study published in Frontiers has solidified the understanding of PFOA’s impact on human health. The findings from the study emphasizes its link to kidney malfunction. Further, a critical review found that higher PFOA exposure correlates with increased cancer risks. This adds scientific support to the MDL claims.
This research supports the causal relationships. Also, it may play a pivotal role in the ongoing litigation by providing the necessary scientific groundwork for the claims.
Moreover, the involvement of PFOA in cancer and other serious diseases has been extensively documented, confirms The New Ledge. Hence, it highlights the potential health ramifications of exposure. The epidemiological evidence has grown significantly, pointing to a pattern of risk associated with PFOA, which is used in firefighting foams.
As the MDL progresses, these findings are crucial in shaping the legal outcomes and potential AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts. Such discoveries ensure that the litigation reflects the seriousness of the health damages claimed by the plaintiffs.
Emerging Focus: Liver and Thyroid Cancer Claims
The court has initiated a new track for bellwether trials focusing on liver and thyroid cancer claims. This decision followed the plaintiffs’ report of approximately 4,600 Leach-related claims and 5,000 other cancer claims in the MDL. An upcoming deadline requires plaintiffs to submit relevant scientific studies. Additionally defendants must provide counter-studies by May 1, 2024.
The emphasis on collecting and scrutinizing scientific evidence highlights the critical role that these findings play in the litigation process. This preparation for the upcoming trials aims to establish a stronger causal link between PFAS exposure
Factors Influencing Settlement Amounts
The connection between emerging scientific evidence and settlement negotiations is undeniable. As both parties prepare their presentations, the quality and persuasiveness of submitted scientific data could heavily impact settlement amounts. This alignment between legal strategy and scientific substantiation is pivotal in defining the compensations awarded.
Moreover, according to TorHoerman Law, the anticipated bellwether trials are poised to set precedents. This may guide the valuation of future claims. Further, the insights gleaned from these trials will be essential in negotiating settlements. It’s due to the fact they will provide a clearer picture of the potential legal outcomes for similar cases.
Settlement amounts in AFFF lawsuits vary widely and depend on several factors:
● Level of exposure: Duration and intensity of contact with AFFF.
● Medical evidence: Connection between AFFF exposure and specific health conditions.
● Medical costs: Treatment expenses and long-term care needs.
● Quality of life impact: Consequences on the individual’s daily life and capacity to work.
● Legal strategy: The effectiveness of the legal team and the impact of bellwether trial outcomes.
FAQs
What does AFFF litigation involve?
AFFF litigation primarily involves legal actions against manufacturers and users of Aqueous Film-Forming Foams, which contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These substances are associated with varied health concerns (immune system disruption and cancers). The lawsuits have been consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Which groups are users of AFFF?
AFFF has been primarily used by military and civilian firefighting units. Its effectiveness in quickly extinguishing fuel fires made it a standard choice where rapid fire suppression is critical. Despite its effectiveness, the environmental and health risks associated with its PFAS components have led to subsequent reductions in use.
Is AFFF currently being utilized?
The use of AFFF has decreased significantly. Regulations and awareness have led to a reduction in its use, with many organizations opting for safer alternatives. However, it may still be in limited use in certain areas where alternatives have not been fully implemented.
The ongoing AFFF litigation underscores the challenges and complexities involved in resolving mass tort cases. As legal proceedings continue, affected individuals and their families look toward the outcomes of these trials and settlements for closure. The interplay of legal strategies, scientific evidence, and personal impacts will shape the future of AFFF litigation.