PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, WA

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

Court Awards $5.4 Million in Attorney’s Fees Following $17.5 Million Settlement in Wisconsin PFAS AFFF Suit

The District Court of South Carolina awarded attorneys representing Wisconsin homeowners alleging contaminated drinking water in their wells due to the actions of makers of firefighting foam $5.4 million in fees and costs, which amounts to 33.3% of the $17.5 million settlement agreed to in January. This case was one of many moving forward in the South Carolina multidistrict litigation regarding aqueous film-forming foams.

August 4, 2021 | Campbell v. Tyco Fire Prods. LP, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00422-RMG (S.D.S.C.)

Court Rejects DuPont’s Attempt to Halt Settlement Deal in New York Proposed Class PFOA Case

A New York federal court rejected DuPont’s attempt to stop the preliminary approval of the settlement deal reached between a proposed class of residents alleging PFOA contamination and Saint-Gobain, 3M, and Honeywell. DuPont expressed concerns that the settlement hinders its ability to get a fair outcome as it continues in litigation, including the settlement agreement’s confidentiality regarding the contributions made by each of the settling defendants.

July 27, 2021 | Baker et al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics et al., No. 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS (S.D.N.Y.)

Proposed New York Class Requests Preliminary Approval for $65 Million Settlement in PFOA Contamination Case

A proposed class of hundreds of residents in New York allegedly affected by water contaminated by PFOA asked a federal court in New York to preliminarily approve a $65.25 million settlement with Saint-Gobain, 3M, and Honeywell. The proposed deal did not settle with the fourth named defendant, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. This settlement fund is intended for the community of Hoosick Falls, New York, with $20.7 million allocated to class members who sought diminution in property value claims, $7.8 million in cash payments to class members who asserted private nuisance, and $22.8 million to fund a ten-year medical monitoring program.

July 21, 2021 | Baker et al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics et al., No. 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS (S.D.N.Y.)

Michigan PFAS Contamination Suit against 3M, Wolverine Moves Forward

Plaintiffs, a group of Michigan residents, alleged that 3M and Wolverine’s PFAS-containing Scotchgard products polluted their drinking water and lowered property values. The companies moved to dismiss the complaint, which alleged claims for negligence, private nuisance, and public nuisance and sought medical monitoring, monetary damages, and remediation funding. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not allege any actual physical injury capable of sustaining a negligence claim, as fear of a future injury does not suffice. The court, however, allowed the remaining claims to proceed.

June 8, 2021 | Zimmerman et al. v. 3M Co. et al., No. 1:17-cv-01062-HYJ-SJB (W.D. MI.)

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Sends Michigan PFAS Suit to Multidistrict Litigation in South Carolina

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) rejected Michigan’s attempt to keep its PFAS lawsuit, filed in January 2020 (Nessel v. Chemguard, Inc., 2021 WL 744683, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2021)), in Michigan, instead sending the suit to multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. The JPML determined that Michigan could not separate its claims purportedly not related to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) from similar suits involving the foams. The JPML noted that the State’s claims targeting groundwater contamination involve sites allegedly contaminated with both AFFF and non-AFFF PFAS and therefore, must be transferred to the multidistrict litigation involving AFFF in South Carolina federal court.

June 7, 2021 | In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2873