National PFAS Case Proposes 25 People in Shift to Injury Claims – Bloomberg Law

Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
By Pat Rizzuto
National litigation involving firefighting foam that contained PFAS took a major step on Tuesday away from its strict focus on water utilities and toward allegations the chemicals harmed thousands of people.
Attorneys representing allegedly injured individuals and corporate defendants, such as the 3M Co., BASF Corp., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., and Tyco Fire Products LP, in the aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) multidistrict litigation proposed that 25 individuals comprise the pool of initial personal injury claims. AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The list includes five plaintiffs alleging kidney cancer, eight alleging testicular cancer, eight plaintiffs alleging hypothyroidism/thyroid disease, and four plaintiffs alleging ulcerative colitis. Those are the four diseases the court previously said could proceed as alleged injuries.
Yet since then, so many cases alleging other illnesses attributed to PFAS exposure have been filed that Judge Richard M. Gergel with the US District Court for the District of South Carolina, which oversees the national case, recently ordered a separate process to help him decide how to handle them.
The agreement on the 25 individuals stands in contrast to disputes attorneys are having as the court strives to move litigation involving a second group of water utilities and defendants forward.
Attorneys representing water utilities that seek recompense for their PFAS-removal costs, and companies that made the chemicals and AFFF have disagreed in multiple court filings as to which utilities should be bellwethers for the second round of water utility litigation.
The first round consisted of water utilities that sought money from manufacturers of older PFAS and foams to help pay their costs of removing the chemicals, and it led to two proposed settlements that will be subject to final fairness hearings on Dec. 14 and Feb. 2, 2024.
The second round of water utilities cases also seek funds to remove the chemicals, but they’re focusing on a newer type of PFAS and foams made with them. The type of PFAS targeted are telomers.
The case is In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation MDL 2873, D.S.C., No. 18-mn-02873, joint proposal filed 12/12/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Pat Rizzuto in Washington at prizzuto@bloombergindustry.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Maya Earls at mearls@bloomberglaw.com; JoVona Taylor at jtaylor@bloombergindustry.com
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

source