3M and DuPont must face Connecticut firefighters’ PFAS lawsuit

• The lawsuit involves 13 firefighter union organizations and 12 individual firefighters claiming PFAS leached from gear through skin absorption, ingestion, and inhalation
• Judge Alvin Thompson ruled that firefighters can seek damages and medical monitoring even without outward symptoms of cancer or other diseases
• This follows 2023 settlements totaling over $11 billion by 3M, DuPont, and others for PFAS contamination in firefighting foam and drinking water, though no wrongdoing was admitted

Summary

A federal judge in Hartford, Connecticut ruled on Tuesday that over 20 defendants, including 3M, DuPont, and Honeywell, must face a lawsuit filed by Connecticut firefighters alleging their protective gear contained toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" that increased cancer risk.

Key Parties and Claims:

The lawsuit, initiated in June 2024, involves 13 firefighter union organizations and 12 individual firefighters. U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson granted unions "organizational" standing to seek damages and allowed firefighters to pursue damages and medical monitoring even without visible disease symptoms.

Products Implicated:

• 3M's Scotchlite reflective material
• DuPont's Kevlar
• Honeywell-manufactured turnout gear

The court found plaintiffs sufficiently alleged 3M, a major PFAS manufacturer, owed a duty to warn about risks and committed negligence. DuPont's PFAS liabilities now partially belong to spinoffs Chemours and Corteva.

PFAS Background:

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are "forever chemicals" that don't easily break down in the human body or environment. They're found in hundreds of products including cosmetics, non-stick cookware, and stain-resistant clothing. Health risks include higher cholesterol, low birth weight, and reduced vaccine antibody response.

Market Context:

In 2023, 3M, DuPont, and two other companies settled over $11 billion in claims related to PFAS contamination in firefighting foam and drinking water, without admitting wrongdoing.

Defendants argued the gear functioned properly in protecting firefighters from fire hazards, but the court allowed the case to proceed. None of the companies immediately commented on the ruling.