Adger Volunteer Fire Department v. 3M Company and Others - PFOA/PFOS Firefighting Gear Class Action
Last verified July 23, 2026Source: courtlistener-litigationHow ClaimWatch verifies cases
This case was recently filed and is being litigated — the claims below are allegations, not proven facts, and there is no settlement, claim form, or payout yet. Watch the case (right) and we'll email you when it moves, including if it settles and a claim process opens.
What happened
A proposed class action by Adger Volunteer Fire Department against multiple manufacturers of firefighting apparel and equipment, apparently alleging personal injury and product liability claims. The case likely concerns alleged exposure to harmful substances such as PFOA/PFOS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) used in firefighting gear. Firefighters and fire departments are seeking damages for alleged injuries related to the use of these products.
Do you qualify?
No settlement exists yet, so there is nothing to file and no class definition to check. If the case settles, the settlement will define exactly who qualifies — watch this case and we'll let you know.
How to file
There is no claim to file yet. If this case reaches a settlement, a claim process will open — usually with an official settlement website and a filing deadline.
Common questions
- Can I file a claim in the Adger Volunteer Fire Department v. 3M Company and Others - PFOA/PFOS Firefighting Gear Class Action case?
- No. This case has been filed and is still being litigated — there is no settlement, no claim form, and no payout. Many class actions are dismissed or never certified, so a case being filed does not mean anyone will be paid. If it settles and a claim process opens, that will be announced by a court-appointed settlement administrator.
- Where is the Adger Volunteer Fire Department v. 3M Company and Others - PFOA/PFOS Firefighting Gear Class Action case being heard?
- The case is before the District Court, N.D. Alabama, case number 2:26-cv-01284. Everything alleged in the complaint is an allegation, not a proven fact.
Who's involved
Defendants
- Viking Life Saving Equipment (America) Inc
- Stedfast USA Inc
- Safety Components Fabric Technologies Inc
- MSA Safety Company Inc
- Morning Pride Manufacturing LLC
- Milliken & Company
- Majestic Fire Apparel Inc
- Lion Group Inc
+ 12 more
Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More consumer products settlements
View all →Schnucks Markets Rewards Points Sales Tax Settlement
Schnucks Markets allegedly charged customers sales tax on the full price of purchases before applying loyalty rewards points discounts, instead of calculating tax on the discounted price after points were redeemed. The lawsuit claimed Schnucks illegally collected excess sales tax and failed to properly inform customers about this practice.
Up to $7
Dr. Squatch "Natural" Products Settlement
Dr. Squatch allegedly represented that its shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, soap and other personal care products were natural, even though they allegedly contained synthetic ingredients. Dr. Squatch denies these allegations and maintains the products were properly labeled. The parties settled to avoid further litigation expenses and uncertainty, with no admission of wrongdoing by Dr. Squatch.
Pro rata payment based on the number of valid claim forms submitted by the Settlement Class
Service Spot Settlement - ParkOn.com and CheapAirportParking.org Reservation Fee
Service Spot, LLC and TripGate LLC allegedly failed to properly disclose a mandatory Reservation Fee for online bookings on ParkOn.com and CheapAirportParking.org in violation of California's Honest Pricing Law. The defendants deny they violated any law but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs.
Pro rata portion of the Settlement Fund based on the total amount of processing fees paid
Kroger Rx Savings Club Settlement
Kroger allegedly failed to consider its Rx Savings Club or Health Savings Club prices when determining "usual and customary" (U&C) prices submitted for insurance claims. Plaintiffs contend Kroger should have used its lower Savings Club prices when calculating U&C prices, resulting in customers paying higher insurance copays. Kroger denies wrongdoing and maintains it correctly reported retail prices as U&C prices. The court has not decided the merits.
Payments calculated based on the amount a claimant paid for prescription drugs from Kroger where prescription insurance benefits were used.