AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit: Eligibility Guide for Firefighters and Veterans
Aqueous film-forming foam — AFFF — is a fire-suppression agent used extensively by the military, airports, and fire departments. AFFF contains PFAS at extremely high concentrations, and its use has contaminated hundreds of military bases and civilian airports across the United States. Firefighters and military personnel who worked with AFFF for years have developed cancer and other illnesses at elevated rates, and thousands are now suing the manufacturers.
In This Article
What Is AFFF and Why Is It Dangerous
AFFF was developed in the 1960s by the U.S. Navy and 3M to suppress fuel fires in aviation and military settings. It contains long-chain PFAS compounds at concentrations far higher than those found in most contaminated drinking water. Firefighters who trained with AFFF, responded to fuel fires, or worked at airports or military bases where AFFF was stored or used often absorbed PFAS through skin contact, inhalation, and ingestion of contaminated water. The PFAS in AFFF has been linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Who Qualifies for the AFFF Lawsuit
The primary defendants in AFFF litigation are 3M, DuPont (now Chemours), Tyco Fire Products, Kidde-Fenwal, and other manufacturers who produced AFFF knowing of its PFAS content and health risks. To qualify for a claim, you generally need: (1) documented occupational exposure to AFFF — meaning you worked with it directly or at a facility where it was used or stored; (2) a diagnosis of a PFAS-linked cancer or serious illness; and (3) a sufficient exposure period, typically at least one year of regular AFFF contact.
- Active-duty military personnel stationed at bases with AFFF use
- Military firefighters and flight-deck crash and rescue teams
- Civilian airport firefighters and crash/fire/rescue personnel
- Municipal firefighters who used AFFF for training or responses
- Industrial firefighters at oil refineries and chemical plants
Firefighter or veteran exposed to AFFF foam?
Find out if you may qualify — free case review.
Check Eligibility arrow_forwardMilitary Personnel: AFFF Exposure and VA Benefits
Veterans who were exposed to AFFF on military bases may qualify for VA disability benefits in addition to civil lawsuit compensation. The PACT Act, signed in 2022, expanded VA eligibility for veterans with certain toxic exposures including PFAS. Filing for VA benefits does not prevent you from also filing a civil lawsuit against AFFF manufacturers — these are entirely separate legal paths. Some veterans qualify for both and receive compensation from both sources.
How to File an AFFF Claim
Most AFFF cases are coordinated in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina. To file, start with a free case evaluation from an attorney experienced in AFFF litigation. The attorney will review your service or employment records, exposure history, and medical records. Cases are taken on contingency — no fees unless you recover compensation. 3M reached an $10.3 billion settlement with public water systems in 2023, and additional settlements for personal injury claimants are ongoing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did 3M know AFFF contained dangerous PFAS?expand_more
Yes. Internal 3M documents produced in litigation show the company knew as early as the 1950s that PFAS bioaccumulated in human tissue and was aware of toxicity concerns by the 1970s. Despite this knowledge, 3M continued producing and selling AFFF for decades without adequate warnings.
Can I file an AFFF claim if my cancer is in the early stages?expand_more
Yes. An early-stage diagnosis may actually be advantageous for filing sooner, as some state statutes of limitations run from the date of diagnosis. Waiting for the cancer to progress could push you past the filing deadline. A free case evaluation will confirm the timing requirements in your state.
Is AFFF litigation different from general PFAS water contamination claims?expand_more
AFFF claims typically focus on occupational exposure — meaning the claimant worked directly with the foam — while general PFAS water contamination claims focus on consuming PFAS-contaminated drinking water in a community setting. The defendants and legal theories overlap significantly, but occupational AFFF claims are often stronger due to the much higher concentration of PFAS in foam compared to drinking water.
SuperLawsuits Editorial Team
Reviewed by licensed attorneys in our network