Firefighters did not choose PFAS. They used the foam their departments stocked and wore the gear their departments issued. Now firefighters in several states say those chemicals made them sick, and DuPont is among the companies they name.
There are two places. The first is aqueous film-forming foam, used in training burns and on fuel fires. Firefighter injury claims over foam sit in the federal multidistrict litigation in the District of South Carolina, MDL 2873, before Judge Richard Gergel. The second is turnout gear. A group of Massachusetts firefighters, all with cancer, sued more than 20 manufacturers in 2022, including 3M and DuPont. Connecticut firefighters followed in 2024. In Montana, Butte-Silver Bow sued in 2025, other municipalities have since joined, and the manufacturers have asked the court to dismiss. These are allegations. No court has ruled on the merits.
In 2005 DuPont agreed to pay the EPA $16.5 million over allegations that it failed to report what it knew about PFOA’s health effects. It settled without admitting liability. The C8 Science Panel, created under the class settlement for Ohio River Valley residents, then found in 2011 and 2012 probable links between PFOA exposure and kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis are the diseases the firefighter cases lean on. That is the bridge from a drinking water case to a firefighter’s medical chart. DuPont disputed what the findings mean for any one person. A probable link is not proof that exposure caused one person’s disease.
DuPont called the Connecticut suit without merit and said it has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS. 3M said it would defend itself or settle as appropriate. Read the defendant’s name carefully. The corporate family split in 2015 and again in 2019, and Chemours, DuPont de Nemours and Corteva allocate PFAS costs among themselves by agreement. A statement from one company does not always answer a complaint against another.
First. Do not let a settlement headline stand in for your client’s case. The water provider settlements resolved claims by public water providers. As of late October 2026, the reporting I found shows no trial date and no global settlement for individual injury claims. The defense is glad to let a reporter think the matter is closed.
Second. Lead with what is in the record: the 2005 EPA penalty and the C8 findings. Say what they are and stop. Do not say DuPont knew your client’s disease would follow.
Third. Choose the face of the story with consent. A firefighter in their own words, with counsel’s approval, carries more than a statistic. Rule 3.6 limits what counsel can say about a pending matter, so draft the statement before the call comes, not after.
If you represent firefighters in a PFAS matter, the same questions apply to your docket. Toxic torts communications → Mass torts communications → What a bellwether verdict means for the rest of the docket → How to find out who is running the defense’s communications →
Sources: Reuters via Insurance Journal, June 2024 (Connecticut gear suit and DuPont’s response); WBUR, February 2022 (Massachusetts suit). Litigation status as reported in late October 2026; confirm against the docket.
Text your case name and the defendant. Same day, you know what the defense is running. Free.
Text Karen — 415.359.4454 or call or email Karen