3M Dispute

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as international and state public health regulators, have recently focused considerable attention on PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), members of a large family of sulfonated compounds that are used for a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and consumer applications. These perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are synthetic and do not occur naturally in the environment. PFOA and PFOS are persistent in the environment, and are not known to ever break down in water, soil, air, or the human body. PFOA and PFOS are retained by the human body, and because of their persistence, bioaccumulate. PFOA and PFOS are animal carcinogens and have been found to potentially cause liver problems, testicular tumors, mammary gland tumors, prostate gland problems, and endocrine disruptive effects, among other things.

For decades, until it largely phased out production of PFOA and PFOS under EPA pressure in approximately 2001, the 3M Company was the sole U.S. manufacturer of PFC family of chemicals. One site at which 3M manufactured those chemicals was at its Cottage Grove, Minnesota facility. Because of 3M's manufacturing, handling, and disposal of these chemicals, PFCs have been released into and accumulated in the environment over many years through various pathways, including air emissions, leaching into groundwater, discharges into surface water (such as the Mississippi River), and disposal in poorly-contained landfill sites. As a result, property and water of residents off-site have been and continue to be contaminated with PFCs, and those persons have been exposed to and have ingested PFCs in elevated amounts.

Along with cooperating co-counsel from Ohio and West Virginia (with experience in other PFC cases) and Minnesota, Beasley Allen has filed lawsuit against 3M on behalf of clients who seek to represent a class of persons whose property and persons have been contaminated by PFCs released from 3M's Cottage Grove plant. We are disappointed that the state court judge in Minnesota has ruled that class certification is not available on this case. While we are disappointed, we are not surprised. Class action certification in environmental cases can be difficult to achieve and we continue to represent individuals in the area, and will continue to prosecute claims involving property damage for those clients.

What can I do?

Protection of people and their property from large corporate polluters is our top priority. A unique feature of our growing environmental/toxic tort practice is the ability to represent a large number of people harmed either physically or by damage to their property. Environmental litigation poses unique legal challenges because of the complex scientific and technical issues frequently addressed, and because of the overlapping authority of numerous administrative agencies and courts at the local, state, and federal levels.

We have worked hard to gain a nation-wide reputation in environmental litigation, often referred to as "toxic torts." These are difficult cases, but we are fighting to make a difference.

If you or a loved one is in need of a environmental attorney, contact us today for a free legal consultation.