|

Pennsylvania Water Utility Alleges Illegal DuPont Spinoff in New PFAS Contamination Case

ByPFAS Primer Team

Pennsylvania-American Water Co. alleges in a new PFAS contamination suit against PFAS manufacturers that DuPont violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by illegally transferring its PFAS business to Chemours in an attempt to avoid PFAS-related liability. The suit, which names many PFAS manufacturers, also alleges strict liability, products liability, negligence, and nuisance claims. February…

|

EPA Offers Few Answers in PFAS Disposal Guidance

ByPFAS Primer Team

On Dec. 18, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its interim guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS, as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020, and as part of the PFAS Action Plan the EPA released in February 2019. The interim guidance is not binding, and does not…

|

Tyco Fire Products Reaches $17.5 Million Settlement in AFFF MDL for PFAS Contamination

ByPFAS Primer Team

Tyco Fire Products LP has agreed to a $17.5 million settlement to resolve claims by plaintiffs alleging PFAS from Tyco’s operations contaminated their drinking wells. The court in the South Carolina AFFF MDL has issued a preliminary approval of the parties’ agreement. January 25, 2021 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL…

|

DuPont, Corteva, and Chemours Settle Ohio MDL and Reach Agreement on Financial Responsibility for Future PFAS Liabilities

ByPFAS Primer Team

DuPont, Corteva, and Chemours have agreed to pay $83 million to settle an Ohio multi-district litigation over PFAS contamination. Even more, the companies have, between them, committed to apportion $4 billion related to PFAS liabilities. January 22, 2021 | E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, No. 2:13-md-02533

|

Saint-Gobain and Others Oppose Class Certification in New York PFAS Contamination Case

ByPFAS Primer Team

Defendants in a PFAS contamination class action suit by Hoosick, New York residents have opposed the residents’ motion for class certification, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims are too individualized to warrant certification. Specifically, Defendants argue the contamination at the plaintiffs’ various properties is distinct and was caused by various sources. January 14, 2021 | Michelle Baker…