KEY TAKEAWAYS

• 3M has committed up to $7.35 billion over nine years, with a present value of $5.8 billion.

• Payments are heavily backloaded: $50 million in 2026; nothing in 2027; six $1.045 billion installments from 2028 to 2033. The rest is contingent: up to $250 million in participation-based payments, $100 million in bonus payments, and a reserve fund of up to $680 million.

• About 115,000 to 120,000 plaintiffs are eligible. Only six “Eligible Injuries” qualify: kidney cancer; testicular cancer; liver cancer; thyroid cancer; ulcerative colitis; thyroid disease.

Almost 8 years ago in December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2873, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The MDL centralized, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, lawsuits against 3M and other defendants over alleged exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The cases originally focused on alleged contamination of groundwater and drinking water by aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam used at military bases, airports, and fire training sites. The MDL has since grown to include claims by firefighters and others alleging direct exposure to AFFF and to PFAS in turnout gear and in drinking water.  Presided over by Judge Richard M. Gergel, the MDL now includes more than 15,000 cases, with roughly 115,000 to 120,000 plaintiffs asserting personal injury claims. It is one of the largest and most complex mass tort proceedings in the country. Against that backdrop, 3M has now agreed to a $7.35 billion settlement of the personal injury claims.

Key Terms of the Deal

• Broad release
  Participants release all PFAS-related claims, not just the six injuries, and waive punitive damages. The release protects 3M, its affiliates and insurers, and anyone 3M indemnifies for PFAS claims, except entities listed on an exhibit to the agreement.
• Walk-away rights
  Either side may terminate if participation thresholds are not met. Those thresholds are in a confidential exhibit the parties have asked the court to seal.
• Plaintiffs’ counsel restrictions
  Counsel must: endeavor to recommend the settlement to all their clients; stop and take down all PFAS personal injury advertising; affirm they have no present intent to bring new PFAS personal injury claims against 3M; and affirm that current science does not link PFAS to any injury other than the six Eligible Injuries.

The Court’s Orders Issued Today

• CMO 39 (Identification Order)
  By November 13, 2026, plaintiffs’ counsel must identify every Eligible Claimant, whether or not the claimant intends to participate. Claimants without a case on file must file one in the MDL within 10 days after that, unless they already have a case pending elsewhere. Claimants without a plaintiff fact sheet must submit one within 14 days, and they are bound by what it alleges.
• CMO 40 (Non-Settling Plaintiffs)
  Plaintiffs who opt out, and anyone who files a new PFAS personal injury case against 3M in the MDL, face strict deadlines to produce records, support for claims, and case-specific causation expert reports, among other requirements. Plaintiffs who miss a deadline and fail to cure within 30 days face dismissal with prejudice. All personal injury proceedings against 3M are stayed. Claims against other defendants are not affected.  

What It Means

• Participation
  CMO 40 makes opting out costly, which should drive high participation. The November 13 identification deadline will give the first real picture of the claimant pool.
• Other PFAS defendants and insurers
  CMO 40 applies only to 3M. The court has said future bellwether tracks will address claims against other parties. Companies with indemnity relationships with 3M should assess whether they fall within the release.

If you have questions about how this impacts your business, please contact:

• John F. Parker
• George H. Buermann