John Gardella was interviewed for and quoted in Law360’s recent article regarding the settlement by DuPont to resolve all current and future PFAS pollution claims that New Jersey has or might have in the future. The author, George Woolston, examines the details of the settlement and takes a deep dive into how the settlement will impact future PFAS litigation brought by other states or litigation that will be brought by additional states. Attorney Gardella’s insights for the article pertained to thoughts on the inclusion of AFFF related pollution claims in the settlement, the impetus for inclusion of those claims, and whether other states will use the settlement to apply pressure on DuPont to resolve additional cases.

For a copy of the article, please click on the link below or scroll down for a copy of the complete article.

https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/2377824

‘Creative’ $2.5B DuPont Deal In NJ Is PFAS Road Map For AGs

By George Woolston ·  Listen to article

Law360 (August 15, 2025, 4:39 PM EDT) — After six years of litigation between New Jersey and E.I. du Pont de Nemours, including a series of bench trials, the chemical manufacturer agreed to a deal that committed more than $2 billion to cleaning up the Garden State from “forever chemical” contamination at four of its facilities, in the largest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state.

Environmental attorneys across the Northeast were not surprised when they heard the news of the deal; there was just too much at stake for the case to go to a jury, and a deal provides DuPont and several of its entities with some control over the cleanup as well as the kind of financial certainty preferred by businesses.

But the deal also signals to other states involved in litigation over forever chemicals, which are known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that there may be an appetite to settle, and it provides a roadmap on how to get there, experts said.

A settlement was “extremely likely to happen,” said David Isabel, chair of the Trenk Isabel Siddiqi & Shahdanian PC’s environmental law practice.

“The stakes were too high,” he said.

A Landmark Settlement

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced the deal on Aug. 4, after more than a month of proceedings in a first-of-its-kind series of bench trials over whether DuPont entities were liable for PFAS contamination over the 125 years of its operations at the Chamber Works site, located in Salem County.

In addition to resolving the state’s 2019 suit over the Chamber Works site, the settlement resolves three other lawsuits brought by the state regarding sites in New Jersey, statewide claims for the firefighting material known as aqueous film-forming foam, and DuPont and its related entities’ responsibilities under a PFAS statewide directive.

DuPont and its related entities agreed to pay $875 million in natural resource and other damages to New Jersey, as well as fund abatement projects that include drinking water treatment at Chamber Works, located in Pennsville and Carneys Point; Pompton Lakes Works in Pompton Lakes and Wanaque, Passaic County; the Parlin site in Sayreville, Middlesex County; and the Repauno site in Greenwich Township, Gloucester County.

The companies also agreed to create a remediation funding source of up to $1.2 billion and an additional reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that if any of the companies goes bankrupt or otherwise fails to fulfill its responsibilities to the state, taxpayers won’t be left with the bill.

Isabel said it was notable that DuPont made significant commitments not just toward funding PFAS cleanup at the sites, but also toward other types of PFAS contamination.

“The settlement is creative,” he said. “It appears to deal with not only the known contamination, but also the potential for other contamination elsewhere, outside of those sites.”

While he was not shocked the parties reached a deal, John Gardella, chair of CMBG3 Law PC’s PFAS, environmental, risk management and consulting, and ESG practice groups, said he was surprised to see the state’s pending aqueous film-forming foam contamination claim in the South Carolina multidistrict litigation included in the deal.

“That claim would probably never have seen the light of day for at least a year, maybe even more,” Gardella said. “But if you’re already willing to put up about $2 billion for remediation and damages costs for PFAS in the state, why not just try and wrap in the MDL-type claim as well and get rid of it, right? I can see that logic as well.”

With the high cost of remediating PFAS to the low levels required by law at four different sites, as well as the additional abatement projects included in the deal, the experts said that deal’s dollar amount isn’t surprising.

“I think that this settlement recognizes the cost that [the DuPont entities] were facing, but also the control that they’re looking to maintain in some ways, over the remediation of the properties,” Isabel said.

Ripple Effects Likely

The deal is also likely to influence states currently litigating PFAS contamination suits at the state and federal level, such as Connecticut, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina.

Steven Miano of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller called New Jersey’s case a “bellwether case.”

“I think they’re all struggling with the whole PFAS liability question. There’s no doubt there’s liability. But I think everyone was trying to understand what amount would settle cases like this,” he said. “Now we have, at least with respect to this very large player, and for big properties, we have a sense of it’s a lot of money. And so I think that informs other states.”

States with a DuPont facility or a facility of another chemical manufacturer will see New Jersey’s deal as an opportunity, Gardella said, and “one that will influence how we move forward settlement wise in the PFAS litigation for years to come.”

“It’s certainly going to have ripple effects for the DuPonts or the 3Ms of the world in PFAS litigation,” he said. “Absolutely other states will use this as a benchmark, and try to negotiate settlements for themselves.”

In addition to setting a benchmark for existing litigation, expect more claims over PFAS as the public becomes more and more aware of their toxicity. The chemicals are extremely resistant to degradation and pose a threat to human health and the environment.

“For private industry, this is a time to continue to pay attention to whether there’s PFAS contamination at properties you’re responsible for in any way, and that you investigated and remediated, because there is a lot of attention on forever chemicals,” Isabel said.

PFAS Litigation Leader

It was crucial for the state to have DuPont responsible for remediating the contamination at the four sites, according to William J. Jackson of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, who served as counsel for New Jersey.

“There is no cash out or a limitation on that obligation. They ultimately are responsible to remediate those four sites from contamination to the satisfaction of the state,” he said. “And so that obligation will just continue in time, as the cleanups occur, as standards may evolve — it’s their obligation to do so.”

Jackson, who represented Louisiana and the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office in the BP/Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill litigation that saw the largest environmental and natural resource damages recovery in history with a $20 billion global settlement, said that in an oil spill case like Deepwater Horizon, the natural resources damage is enormous, but the effects are readily apparent.

PFAS litigation is in some ways more challenging than litigating an environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon, Jackson said, because of the difficulty in ascertaining the damage caused by contamination from one facility versus another, as well as other natural baseline conditions.

“With PFAS, it’s been incredibly challenging and unlike anything I’ve seen before, because these were unregulated compounds. People didn’t understand what they were, and they weren’t subject to the law,” he said. “That’s where New Jersey has been remarkable. They have assumed a leadership role on these chemicals, from the first time that DuPont ever revealed they were unsafe.”

States that have manufacturers like 3M or DuPont or Solvay with facilities in their jurisdiction just have to look to the Garden State to address their PFAS contamination, Isabel said.

“I think New Jersey has provided a roadmap for how you may want to address your own PFAS problems,” he said.