The July 1, 2026 JPML report lists MDL 2873 with 15,244 pending actions in the District of South Carolina, with the unresolved docket dominated by personal-injury claims. The litigation has grown from 19,819 total actions filed since 2018 and ranks among the largest active PFAS proceedings, alongside the related DuPont PFOA settlement, in JPML statistics.
The headline settlements, more than $13 billion in announced value from 3M, DuPont, Tyco, BASF, and Carrier, direct their compensation to water providers, with the Carrier deal also reaching participating airports. Injured firefighters and contaminated-water residents remain outside those deals. This article analyzes the MDL's consolidation history, water-provider settlements, unresolved personal-injury track, dismissal motions, documentation demands, reserve issues, and deadlines through late 2026.
How MDL 2873 Consolidated Every AFFF Injury Claim in One Court
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1391 (J.P.M.L. 2018), on December 7, 2018, and transferred 75 civil actions to the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. Centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 sends cases with common factual questions to one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motions, plus settlement work while preserving each plaintiff's right to trial if no deal is reached. The initial transfer order identified common questions "concerning the toxicity of PFOA and PFOS and their effects on human health" and the manufacturers' knowledge of those dangers.
AFFF is a foam used for decades by fire departments and crews at military bases or airports to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Plaintiffs allege its PFAS constituents bioaccumulate in human blood, a theory reflected in historical EPA PFOS background, and they plead failure-to-warn and design-defect claims along with negligence against defendants that grew from an early master complaint naming 3M, Tyco Fire Products, BASF, Corteva, and the DuPont and Chemours entities to a short-form complaint naming additional defendants, including Honeywell International and Daikin America.
Two exposure pathways define the personal-injury track:
- Direct exposure: firefighters and military personnel who used AFFF in training or operations
- Drinking-water exposure: residents near bases and airports whose water supplies took AFFF runoff
Why $13 Billion in Water Settlements Pays Nothing to Injured Claimants
MDL 2873 runs on two tracks, and only one has settled. The resolved public-water-system settlements cover municipal utilities; the Carrier/Kidde-Fenwal bankruptcy-linked deal also includes participating airports and was subject to MDL court approval under the disclosed agreement. The five announced water-provider deals:
- 3M: $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion nominal, described in the company's SEC filing as up to $10.3 billion in present value payable over 13 years; final approval on March 29, 2024 covered more than 12,000 public water systems
- DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva: $1,185,000,000; final approval February 8, 2024
- Tyco Fire Products: $750,000,000; final approval November 22, 2024, with the final $415 million payment made in December 2024
- BASF: $316,500,000; final approval November 22, 2024
- Carrier/Kidde-Fenwal: $615 million cash over five years plus roughly $115 million in estimated asset-sale proceeds and insurance recovery rights, for participating public water systems and airports
Personal-injury claims remain unreleased. Chemours' 8-K states the deal "does not resolve … claims such as for personal injury." Judge Gergel's November 22, 2024 final approval orders for Tyco and BASF state: "The Release provisions described above do not purport to release any individual's personal injury claims. Contentions to the contrary knowingly distort the text of the Settlement Agreement and objections on this basis are overruled."
For firms valuing AFFF inventory, the water settlements provide liability evidence and defendant-capacity data. On July 21, 2026, the personal-injury track remained entirely unresolved.
Where the Personal-Injury Track Stands in Mid-2026
The current posture rests on a docket that surged and then plateaued while the first trial was vacated and leadership turned toward coordinated settlement work as the inventory gets vetted.
The October 2025 JPML report showed 13,942 pending cases, a surge that coincided with CMO 35's filing window. The July 2026 JPML report shows 15,244 pending actions, only 31 more than the January count.
The first personal-injury trial never happened. Bellwether trials generate reliable information about other centralized cases; the Federal Judicial Center has documented how bellwether verdicts can supply the data parties use to build a global settlement framework. Judge Gergel set the first bellwether for October 20, 2025, limited to three kidney-cancer cases identified in orders by short names: Donnelly, Spears, and Voelker. CMO 35, entered August 15, 2025, vacated the trial and all related dates "until such a time as the Court deems appropriate" because the docket included unfiled and unvetted claims.
The court has not set a replacement trial date. CMO 26N schedules expert work for ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease plaintiffs. CMO 34 is the court's most recent re-appointment of Plaintiffs' leadership, with Michael A. London serving as a co-lead of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.
Why Defendants Moved to Dismiss More Than 10,000 Plaintiffs
While no trial is scheduled, defendants are attempting to shrink the docket through documentation-based dismissal motions, with final attrition still unresolved. Defendants, including Tyco and DuPont, moved on June 1–2, 2026, to dismiss roughly 8,000 plaintiffs for failure to provide medical records and factual information, then filed a second motion on June 25 targeting more than 10,000; they withdrew requests as to more than 1,000 after cure submissions. Judge Gergel appointed former U.S. District Chief Judge Margaret Seymour as special master on June 15, 2026, to evaluate cure claims.
CMO 37, entered February 25, 2026, supplies the mechanics: defendants serve a non-compliance list, plaintiffs get 14 days to cure (90 for verification-only defects), and defendants may seek dismissal, including dismissal with prejudice under the applicable CMO framework, after uncured deficiencies. A submission is non-responsive if it:
- lacks a valid name and date of birth
- fails to identify at least one exposure location with approximate dates
- arrives without a signed and dated verification, or is otherwise completely nonresponsive
The bar sits higher for later-filed cases. CMO 35 sets two proof regimes. Cases filed between March 1, 2025 and the close of that filing window must supply diagnosis evidence, a plaintiff fact sheet, and exposure proof through "military service records, employment records and documents, or relevant tax forms" for direct-exposure claims, or residency documentation plus water-contamination evidence for drinking-water claims, on the staggered deadlines the order sets. Cases filed after the Window closes carry a stricter requirement: a complete set of medical records documenting diagnosis, management, and treatment within 90 days of filing, plus Rule 26 causation expert disclosures within 120 days. Defendants characterized the compressed timelines as incompatible with obtaining hospital records for thousands of cases filed close to a deadline.
How a Points-Based Matrix Converts Records Into Claim Value
By July 21, 2026, MDL 2873 had no approved settlement matrix. Any grid would likely assign compensation ranges by injury type and documented exposure quality. Tier placement is the scoring process; higher tiers pay more. The building blocks are on the record.
CMO 35 designates six qualifying injuries: "(1) kidney cancer, (2) testicular cancer, (3) ulcerative colitis, (4) thyroid disease, (5) liver cancer, and (6) thyroid cancer." Retired judge Layn Phillips has been the court-appointed mediator since October 26, 2022; the most recent mediation session referenced in a court order was set for July 25, 2025. Court orders in the MDL do not identify age or exposure duration as scoring factors.
Prior MDL matrices treated documentation as the direct mathematical input to dollar value:
- The 3M Combat Arms allocation methodology, covered in a related 3M earplug analysis, scored claims through a points formula in which documentation quality drove placement. The Camp Lejeune elective option pays $150,000 for a Tier 1 injury with 30–364 days of documented exposure and $450,000 above five years under the Navy's guidance, a $300,000 swing that turns entirely on exposure records.
Inventory, Documentation, and Reserve Decisions Facing Both Sides
The current posture rewards firms that treat records collection as valuation work and penalizes those that treat it as compliance. Both sides of the bar face concrete decisions before any matrix is finalized.
For Plaintiff Firms Carrying or Acquiring AFFF Inventory
- The six-injury list is a hard gate: files outside those diagnoses sit outside the PEC's filing process. Do not acquire inventory without verified diagnosis records matching one of the six conditions.
- Start records collection at retainer signing.
- The 90-day medical-records deadline leaves no room for post-filing retrieval, and cure periods run 14 days.
- Audit prior dismissal history on every file; under the MDL's compliance framework, a repeat dismissal of the same claim can operate with prejudice as an adjudication on the merits absent good cause.
For Defense and Coverage Counsel
Reserve postures are moving. 3M carried $7.7 billion in PFAS-related environmental liabilities as of the end of 2025, and Chemours' FY2025 10-K accrues $361 million for PFAS matters. Coverage law is splitting along the same exposure lines as the claims: National Foam, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 768 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2025), held the pollution exclusion barred coverage for indirect environmental PFAS exposure but not direct exposure to PFAS in the policyholder's own AFFF products. Historical occurrence policies are likely central to personal-injury settlement capacity, so map each company's pre-exclusion coverage.
Deadlines and Boundary Rulings to Watch Through Late 2026
The near-term calendar concerns experts and cure adjudication. Rule 702 proceedings on the liver and thyroid cancer general-causation experts are underway, and additional ulcerative colitis plaintiff selections are moving into expert discovery. Special Master Seymour's cure evaluations will determine how much of the dismissal target actually leaves the docket. The JPML again declined in 2025 to pull turnout-gear-only cases into the MDL, in an order dated December 11, calling that expansion "a step too far towards an MDL unmoored from AFFF claims." The personal-injury docket had no global settlement with any defendant group on July 21, 2026, and methodology-free per-claimant value estimates should not anchor inventory decisions.
Documentation Discipline as the Deciding Variable
MDL 2873 will price records. Plaintiff counsel should screen every file against the six designated injuries and collect diagnosis and exposure documentation at retainer. Check prior dismissal history before the next non-compliance list arrives. Defense and coverage counsel should reconcile reserves with the direct-versus-indirect exposure split now hardening in coverage case law. When a matrix does arrive, the precedents suggest it will pay for specificity in diagnosis and exposure records. For related toxic-tort context across decades of delayed individual compensation, see the asbestos mesothelioma analysis.
