PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

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

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

Insurer Seeks Court’s Permission to Neither Defend nor Indemnify its Insured in PFAS Lawsuits

Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”) filed a complaint against one of its insured, Fire Dex, LLC (“Fire Dex”), seeking a declaration that it does not have to defend or indemnify Fire Dex in three underlying suits alleging that Fire Dex and other defendants manufactured, sold, and distributed fire protective gear and fire suppression foam containing PFAS, which allegedly caused various cancers in firefighters and their spouses. Fire Dex filed a motion to dismiss Admiral’s complaint, arguing that an Ohio state court is the preferred forum to resolve this case’s insurance coverage issues since they involve novel and unsettled matters of state law. On October 31, 2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that certain novel questions of law were best reserved for the Ohio state courts to answer in the first instance. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2022.

June 22, 2022 | Admiral Ins. Co. v. Fire-Dex, LLC Case No.: 1-22-cv-01087-PAB (N.D. Ohio)

Massachusetts’ Attorney General Files Suit Against 3M Company and other Chemical Companies Over Alleged Statewide PFAS Pollution

The Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a civil complaint against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that the defendant chemical companies advertised, marketed, manufactured, and sold aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) in the state, despite allegedly knowing that PFAS was dangerous and toxic.

May 25, 2022 | Massachusetts v. 3M Co. Case No. 2:22-cv-1649, Master Docket No.: 2:18-mn-2873 (D.S.C.)

Federal Judge Dismissed Class Action Suit Involving Alleged PFAS-Contaminated Sites the Defendant Company Inherited from DuPont

The court dismissed with prejudice all the remaining claims in a federal securities class action suit against The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) and other individual defendants, which alleged the defendants defrauded their shareholders by failing to disclose the full extent of their environmental liabilities. The lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, failed to comply with the court’s order to file the deposition of the case’s only remaining witness, whose allegations were the sole remaining support for the complaint, the majority of which had already been partially dismissed.

May 19, 2022 | In re The Chemours Co. Secs. Litig. Case No. 19-1911-CFC (D. Del.)

Hamptons Residents Bring Lawsuit Against the Department of Interior and Army Corps of Engineers

In November 2021, the Department of Interior (“DOI”) approved the construction and operation of the 132-megawatt South Fork Wind Project, developed by Orsted and Eversource, off of the coast of Long Island. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a dredging permit for the project in January 2022. Two East Hampton, New York couples accused the DOI and Army Corps of approving mainland work needed to connect the project to the grid even though it will allegedly disturb and spread existing PFAS groundwater contamination. The plaintiffs argue that the work runs adjacent to their properties and threatens to disturb and spread the pollution that is already impacting wells on their properties and also makes their properties less valuable. The plaintiffs are asking that the court find that the DOI and the Army Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedures Act.

March 9, 2022 | Mahoney et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01305 (E.D.N.Y.)

Daikin’s Attempt to Certify Questions Concerning PFAS-Manufacturers’ Liability to Georgia Supreme Court Denied

In February 2021, Earl Parris, Jr. filed a class action complaint, and later an amended complaint, in the Northern District of Georgia against Daikin America (“Daikin”), Inc., and other defendants, alleging discharges of PFAS-contaminated sludge and biosolids into the Raccoon Creek watershed. The court denied of Daikin’s Motion to Dismiss and request to certify questions to the Georgia Supreme Court or for interlocutory appeal.  

April 27, 2022 (defendant’s motion to certify or for interlocutory appeal filed); June 27, 2022 (court denies defendant’s motion to certify or for interlocutory appeal) | Parris, Jr. v. 3M Co. Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga)