How PFAS Claims Work: Tracks, Damages, and Deadlines

PFAS claims work along two separate tracks, and figuring out which one applies to you is the first thing to do. Public water systems have already settled with 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva for a combined total above $11.6 billion, with filing windows for some phases running through 2030. Individual personal injury cases, brought by people who developed cancer or other diseases after PFAS exposure, remain unresolved and are consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. The two tracks follow different rules, timelines, and proof requirements, and understanding how PFAS claims work means understanding both.

The Two Tracks and Who Files Each

Water system claims were created by court-approved class action settlements between PFAS manufacturers and public water utilities. The money funds testing, filtration, and treatment to remove PFAS from drinking water. The claimants are the water systems themselves, not individual residents who drank the water.

Personal injury claims are filed by individuals who developed specific health conditions after years of exposure to contaminated water or direct contact with products containing PFAS. These cases live in MDL 2873, formally titled In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel.¹ The MDL includes roughly 10,000 cases covering personal injury, property damage, and medical monitoring. No personal injury settlements have been reached as of mid-2026, though attorneys expect a resolution in 2026 or 2027 once bellwether trial outcomes start to come in.

The core defendants are the chemical manufacturers. 3M, which produced PFOS-based compounds for decades, agreed to a water system settlement of between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion.² DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva collectively agreed to $1.185 billion, with Chemours contributing roughly half.³ These water system settlements do not resolve personal injury claims. Defendants extend beyond the chemical makers to companies that formulated firefighting foam for military and airport use, and increasingly to downstream manufacturers that put PFAS into food packaging, cookware, wearables, and water-resistant clothing.

Health Conditions That Qualify

Not every illness linked to PFAS in a research paper qualifies for a legal claim. The personal injury bellwether cases focus on four conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. The Amended Personal Injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet used in the litigation also lists pregnancy-induced hypertension, high cholesterol, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer as eligible injuries.⁴

The strength of the science varies by condition. Federal health agencies consider the link between PFOA exposure and kidney cancer to have sufficient scientific support, while the associations with testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis are classified as limited or suggestive.⁵ The EPA also recognizes increased cholesterol, reproductive effects, reduced immune function, and developmental delays in children as potential health consequences.⁶ Claimants with kidney cancer tied to PFOA currently have the strongest scientific foundation. Other conditions can still succeed, but the evidentiary burden is steeper.

Exposure That Supports a Claim

Contaminated municipal water and private wells are the most common basis for PFAS claims, especially for people who lived near manufacturing facilities, military bases, or airports where firefighting foam was regularly used. The MDL’s Plaintiff Fact Sheet asks claimants to identify the specific addresses where they were exposed, the water provider or private well that served those addresses, and the years exposure began and ended.⁴

Firefighters and military personnel face a distinct exposure through direct contact with aqueous film-forming foam during training and emergency response. These claimants identify the locations where they handled foam, the specific products used if known, and how the exposure occurred, whether through spraying, handling containers, cleaning equipment, or accidental releases.

The strongest standing goes to claimants who lived in a contaminated area for several years and were later diagnosed with a qualifying condition. The key is tying elevated PFAS concentrations in your water or environment to the time period you were there, and aligning that timeline with your diagnosis. Water quality reports from local utilities or independent testing of a private well are central evidence; the EPA’s enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFOA, PFOS, and four other compounds give claimants a legal benchmark for what counts as contamination above safe levels.⁷

Documentation You Need

Gaps in records are where claims stall or fail. For a personal injury claim, medical records are the backbone: a definitive diagnosis of a qualifying condition, the date of onset, and the course of treatment. The MDL Plaintiff Fact Sheet requires claimants to identify every healthcare provider who treated or consulted on the injury, including physician names, specialties, and facility names, and to attach supporting medical records.⁴

Residence history matters just as much. Property deeds, leases, and utility bills establish how long you lived near a contamination site. Water quality reports or independent lab results showing PFAS in your water supply connect your location to actual chemical exposure. For occupational claims, employment records should document job titles, years of service, and duties involving firefighting foam or chemical coatings.

Public water systems filing under the 3M or DuPont settlements submit PFAS testing results for each water source. Claims can be filed online at pfaswatersettlement.com or mailed to the claims administrator, and the form must be signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized representative of the water system, certifying that all water sources have been tested.⁸

How the Water System Settlements Pay Out

The water system settlements are operational and paying out. Both the 3M and DuPont settlements follow a phased structure with multiple claim types and deadlines:

Phase Two Testing Claims Form: March 31, 2026
Phase Two Public Water System Claims Form: July 31, 2026
Phase Two Special Needs Claims Form: August 1, 2026
Supplemental Fund Claims (Phase One and Two): December 31, 2030

Phase Two qualifying class members must test each water source for PFAS and submit detailed test results to the claims administrator within 45 calendar days of receiving results, and no later than July 1, 2026.⁸ A water system that misses its deadline forfeits any right to participate. The supplemental claims form stays open through December 31, 2030, giving systems a longer window if they discover contamination later.⁹

How Personal Injury Claims Move Through MDL 2873

Personal injury claims follow a slower path. Discovery and pretrial motions are coordinated across thousands of individual cases in the MDL. The litigation is in the bellwether phase: courts select a small group of representative cases to try first, and the outcomes influence settlement negotiations for the rest. Twenty-eight personal injury bellwether cases have been selected — eight kidney cancer, eight testicular cancer, eight thyroid disease, and four ulcerative colitis. Case-specific discovery continues, and no trial date has been finalized. The timeline for a global personal injury resolution hinges on those trial results.

Each plaintiff must complete an Amended Personal Injury Plaintiff Fact Sheet. At a minimum, the form must identify at least one exposure location with approximate dates, answer every medical history question, include supporting medical records, and carry a signed verification. A fact sheet that is not substantially complete in all respects can be rejected.⁴ Incomplete exposure histories, missing medical records, or unsigned verifications give defendants grounds to challenge the claim before it ever reaches the merits.

What You Can Recover

PFAS claims can yield several types of compensation depending on whether the claim involves personal injury, property damage, or pre-symptomatic exposure.

Economic Damages

These are the quantifiable financial losses: past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and reduced earning capacity for people whose illness prevents them from working. For property claims, economic damages include the cost of installing water filtration, connecting to an alternative water supply, and in severe cases, excavating and replacing contaminated soil. Homeowners may also recover for diminished property values caused by known contamination.

Non-Economic Damages

Pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life fall into this category. These amounts are subjective and vary enormously by jurisdiction and severity of illness. A claimant diagnosed with kidney cancer after years of unknowing exposure to contaminated water will typically receive a larger non-economic award than someone diagnosed with elevated cholesterol.

Medical Monitoring

Medical monitoring is a distinct remedy for people who have been exposed to PFAS but have not yet developed a diagnosable disease. It covers ongoing diagnostic testing and physician visits aimed at catching health problems early. Not every state recognizes medical monitoring as a standalone cause of action, and the rules about whether you need to show a present physical injury vary. Where it is available, it provides regular screening funded by the companies responsible for the exposure rather than out of your own pocket.

Filing Deadlines and the Discovery Rule

Timing is one of the most treacherous aspects of PFAS claims. Every state imposes a deadline for personal injury and property damage lawsuits, typically running from two to six years depending on the jurisdiction and claim type. Miss the deadline and no amount of evidence saves the claim.

The question is when the clock starts. Because contamination often occurs decades before anyone discovers it, most states apply some version of the discovery rule: the limitations period begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known about the injury and its connection to the contamination, not when the exposure first occurred. Federal law reinforces this approach. Under CERCLA, the federally required commencement date overrides stricter state deadlines when a hazardous substance is involved, giving the plaintiff one year from discovering the cause of the injury or three years from discovering the injury itself, whichever is longer.

Some states also impose a statute of repose, which is a hard cutoff measured from the date of the defendant’s conduct rather than the plaintiff’s discovery. A repose period can extinguish a claim even when the plaintiff had no way of knowing about the contamination until after the deadline passed. In some jurisdictions, a continuing-tort theory may offer a path around the repose bar if the defendant’s contaminating conduct is ongoing. The practical takeaway: filing deadlines for a PFAS claim depend on where you live, what type of claim you’re bringing, and when you first learned about the contamination.

Attorney Fees

PFAS cases are almost universally handled on a contingency fee basis. The attorney collects a percentage of your recovery rather than billing by the hour. The standard fee in mass tort cases is roughly one-third of the settlement if the case resolves before trial, and can increase to 40 percent if trial preparation or actual trial is required. Some jurisdictions use a sliding scale where the percentage decreases as the recovery amount increases.

Beyond the contingency fee, attorneys are typically reimbursed for case-related expenses: court filing fees, expert witness fees, document copying, and similar costs. These are usually deducted from the settlement proceeds before you receive your share. In a complex environmental case with extensive expert testimony and years of discovery, those costs can be substantial. Any fee agreement should spell out which expenses you’re responsible for and when they’re deducted.

Tax Treatment of a Recovery

Settlement proceeds for personal physical injuries or physical sickness are generally excluded from gross income under federal tax law. If you receive compensation because PFAS exposure caused kidney cancer or another qualifying physical condition, you typically owe no federal income tax on the damages, whether paid as a lump sum or in periodic payments.¹⁰

There are exceptions. Punitive damages are always taxable regardless of the underlying claim. Emotional distress that does not stem from a physical injury is also taxable, except to the extent the payment covers actual medical care costs for treating the distress. If you previously deducted medical expenses on your tax return and later recover those same costs through a settlement, the recovered portion may be taxable under the tax-benefit rule.¹¹ Medical monitoring payments occupy a gray area that depends on how the settlement agreement characterizes them, so the structure of any settlement matters for tax purposes.

1
United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
2
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Frequently Asked Questions (3M)
3
DuPont. Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva Reach Comprehensive PFAS Settlement With US Water Systems
4
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Case Management Order 5G – Amended Personal Injury Plaintiff Fact Sheets
5
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Health Effects – PFAS Information for Clinicians
6
US EPA. Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS
7
US EPA. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
8
3M. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873) Public Water System Settlement Claims Form
9
PFAS Water Settlement. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873) Public Water System Settlement Supplemental Claims Form
10
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 104 – Compensation for Injuries or Sickness
11
Internal Revenue Service. Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments