Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 34
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Case No.:
ALAN DAVIS and LESLIE DAVIS;
DONALD EASTER and THERESA EASTER;
BILLY LONG and LINDA LONG; JOYCE
MOORE; LONNIE ROUSER, SR.; and
RHONDA SHARKEY, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff
v.
THE 3M CORPORATION (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing, Co),
THE ANSUL COMPANY,
ANGUS FIRE,
NATIONAL FOAM,
BUCKEYE FIRE PROTECTION CO.,
CHEMGUARD,
Defendants

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, ALAN DAVIS and LESLIE DAVIS; DONALD EASTER and THERESA
EASTER; BILLY LONG and LINDA LONG; JOYCE MOORE; LONNIE ROUSER, SR.; and
RHONDA SHARKEY, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby files this Class Action
Complaint, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and makes these
allegations based on information and belief and/or which are likely to have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery against Defendant, THE
3M CORPORATION (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co), Defendant, THE
1

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 34
 

ANSUL COMPANY, Defendant, ANGUS FIRE, Defendant, NATIONAL FOAM, Defendant,
BUCKEYE FIRE PROTECTION CO., and Defendant CHEMGUARD, (collectively
“Defendants”) as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Contamination of the Fountain, Security, and Widefield Communities
1.

The Colorado communities of Fountain, Security, and Widefield are all located

south of Colorado Springs. These communities receive their water from the Fountain Creek
Watershed area.
2.

They are nearby and downgradient of the Peterson Air Force Base / Colorado

Springs Airport, and Fort Carson.
3.

Airports as well as bases operated by the U.S. Air Force and other branches of the

military, have used aqueous firefighting foams (“AFFF”) and other materials containing
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to
perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) or PFOS.
4.

These sites have been linked to the contamination of surface and groundwater

with PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorinated chemicals (“PFCs”) throughout the country.
5.

PFOA and PFOS that originated and was released from the Peterson Air Force

Base, Colorado Springs Airport, and Fort Carson have contaminated the Fountain Watershed
Area.
6.

PFOA has been detected in levels exceeding the current EPA Health Advisory

Limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in the Fountain Creek watershed area that provides water to
these communities through both municipal water systems and private wells.

2

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 34
 

7.

Colorado cities in the Fountain Watershed Area are ranked among the hardest-hit

of 63 areas nationwide where the EPA has found PFCs exceeding the 70 ppt limit.1
Health Effects of PFOS and PFOA Exposure
8.

PFOA, also known as C8 has been studied extensively by among others, a

Science Panel that was formed out of a class action settlement from a lawsuit arising from
contamination from DuPont’s Washington Works located in Wood County West Virginia. This
panel consisted of three epidemiologists who were specifically tasked with determining whether
there was a probably link between C8 and human diseases. The panel found probable links
between PFOA and kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease,
pregnancy induced hypertension (including preeclampsia), and hypercholesterolemia.
Defendants Manufacture and Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (“AFFF”)
9.

The Defendants manufactured AFFF that contained fluorochemical surfactants,

believed to include PFOS, PFOA, and/or certain other PFC’s that degrade into PFOS or PFOA.
As the manufacturers of AFFF, the Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of
PFCs in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. Defendants
also knew or should have known that PFCS are highly soluble in water, highly mobile, extremely
persistent in the environment, and highly likely to contaminate water supplies if released to the
environment.
10.

The Defendants marketed and sold their products with knowledge that large

quantities of toxic, PFCs containing AFFF would be used in training exercises and in emergency
situations at military bases and airports, including the Peterson Air Force Base, in such a manner
that dangerous chemicals would be released into the environment.
                                                            
1

Bruce Finley, Drinking water in three Colorado cities contaminated with toxic chemicals above EPA limits,
DENVER POST (Jun. 15, 2016, 4:08 PM), http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/15/colorado-widefield-fountainsecurity-water-chemicals-toxic-epa/

3

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 34
 

11.

The Defendants marketed and sold their products with knowledge that large

quantities of toxic, PFCs containing AFFF would be stored in fire suppressant systems and tanks
on Air Force Bases and at airports and that such systems and storage were used and maintained
in such a manner that dangerous chemicals would be released into the environment.
Plaintiffs Exposure and Damages
12.

Plaintiffs have suffered both personal injury and property damage as a result of

the PFOA and PFOS contamination of their water supplies by AFFF that has entered the
Fountain Creek Watershed area.
13.

The Plaintiffs and the class, as residents in the communities in the Fountain Creek

Watershed area, have been exposed for many years to PFCs including at concentrations
hazardous to their health.
14.

The properties of the Plaintiffs and the class have been damaged as a result of the

presence of PFC’s present in the groundwater and drinking water in both private and municipal
wells.
15.

Plaintiffs seek recovery from Defendants for injuries, damages and losses suffered

by the Plaintiffs, each of whom suffered injuries as a result of exposure to the introduction of
PFOA, PFOS and other toxic substances into the drinking water of the Fountain Creek
Watershed area, in an amount to be determined at trial, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’
fees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1) and

(d)(2) in that this action seeks monetary relief in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest,
costs and attorney's fees and is between citizens of different States.
4

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 34
 

17.

Venue is appropriate in this judicial circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of
Colorado.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
18.

Plaintiffs Alan Davis and Leslie Davis are residents of Colorado Springs,

Colorado, who currently reside at 451 Dexter St., Colorado Springs, CO 80911. They currently
receive their water from a municipal well owned by the Widefield Water and Sanitation District.
Their property has been tested for the presence of PFOA and elevated levels of PFOA were
found to be present. The Davises have been exposed to PFOA, have elevated levels of PFOA in
their blood, and are at an increased risk of several health effects, including but not limited to
effects on the liver and immune system, high cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid hormone, and
kidney cancer.
19.

Plaintiffs Donald Easter and Theresa Easter are residents of Widefield, Colorado,

who currently reside at 6860 Harding St., Colorado Springs, CO 80911. They currently receive
their water from a municipal well owned by the Widefield Water and Sanitation District. Their
property has been tested for the presence of PFOA and elevated levels of PFOA were found to be
present. The Easters have been exposed to PFOA, have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood,
and are at an increased risk of several health effects, including but not limited to effects on the
liver and immune system, high cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid hormone, and kidney
cancer.
20.

Plaintiff Billy Long and Linda Long are residents of Fountain, Colorado, who

currently reside at 102 Comanche Court, Fountain, CO 80817. They currently receive their water

5

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 34
 

from a municipal well owned by the Fountain Water District. Their property has been tested for
the presence of PFOA and elevated levels of PFOA were found to be present. The Longs have
been exposed to PFOA, have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood, and are at an increased risk
of several health effects, including but not limited to effects on the liver and immune system,
high cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid hormone, and kidney cancer.
21.

Plaintiff Lonnie Rouser, Sr. is a resident of Fountain, Colorado, who currently

resides at 957 Bromefield Drive, Fountain, CO 80911. He currently receives his water from a
municipal well owned by the Fountain Water District. His property has been tested for the
presence of PFOA and elevated levels of PFOA were found to be present. Mr. Rouser has been
exposed to PFOA, has elevated levels of PFOA in his blood, and is at an increased risk of several
health effects, including but not limited to effects on the liver and immune system, high
cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid hormone, and kidney cancer.
22.

Plaintiff Joyce Moore is a resident of Security, Colorado, who currently resides at

208 Jasper Drive, Security, CO 80911. She currently receives her water from a municipal well
owned by the Security Water District. Her property has been tested for the presence of PFOA
and elevated levels of PFOA were found to be present. Ms. Moore has been exposed to PFOA,
has elevated levels of PFOA in her blood, and is at an increased risk of several health effects,
including but not limited to effects on the liver and immune system, high cholesterol levels,
changes in thyroid hormone, and kidney cancer.
23.

Plaintiff Rhonda Sharkey is a resident of Security, Colorado, who currently

resides at 80 Davie Drive, Security, CO 80911. She currently receives her water from a
municipal well owned by the Security Water District. Her property has been tested for the
presence of PFOA and elevated levels of PFOA were found to be present. Ms. Moore has been

6

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 34
 

exposed to PFOA, has elevated levels of PFOA in her blood, and is at an increased risk of
several health effects, including but not limited to effects on the liver and immune system, high
cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid hormone, and kidney cancer.
DEFENDANTS
24.

When reference is made in this Complaint to any act or omission of any of the

Defendants, it shall be deemed that the officers, directors, agents, employees or representatives
of the Defendants committed or authorized such act or omission, or failed to adequately
supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the management,
direction, operation or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so while acting within the
scope of their duties, employment or agency.
25.

The term “Defendant” or “Defendants” refers to all Defendants named herein

jointly and severally.
26.

Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants are responsible, negligently,

intentionally and/or in some actionable manner, for the events and happenings referred to herein,
and caused and continue to cause injuries and damages legally thereby to Plaintiffs, as alleged,
either through each Defendant's own conduct or through the conduct of their agents, servants or
employees, or due to the ownership, maintenance or control of the instrumentality causing them
injury, or in some other actionable manner.
27.

Defendant 3M Company (“3M”) is, upon information and belief, a Delaware

corporation and does business throughout the United States, including conducting business in
Colorado. 3M sold Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) used to fight fires at numerous military
bases, airports, and other locations throughout the country.

7

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 34
 

28.

Defendant 3M is an American multinational corporation based in Maplewood,

Minnesota. 3M was founded in 1902 as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.
With approximately $30 billion in annual net sales, 3M employs approximately 90,000 people,
operates in approximately 70 countries, people and produces more than 55,000 products.
29.

Defendant 3M is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to C.R.S. 13-1-

30.

3M is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity in this state; all as more

124.

fully alleged herein.
31.

Defendant The Ansul Company (hereinafter "Ansul '') is a Wisconsin corporation,

having a principal place of business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin 54143. At all
times relevant, Ansul manufactured fire suppression products, including AFFF that contained
fluorocarbon surfactants containing PFCs.
32.

National Foam, Inc. (a/k/a Chubb National Foam) (National Foam, Inc. and

Chubb National Foam are collectively referred to as "National Foam") is a Pennsylvania
corporation, having a principal place of business at 350 East Union Street, West Chester,
Pennsylvania 19382. At all times relevant, National Foam manufactured fire suppression
products, including AFFF that contained fluorocarbon surfactants containing PFCs.
33.

Defendant Angus Fire is part of Angus International with its corporate

headquarters in Bentham in the United Kingdom. Angus Fire has a place of business located in
the United States at 141 Junny Road, Angier, NC 27501.
34.

At all times relevant to the present litigation Angus Fire was engaged in the

manufacture, marketing, and sale of AFFF that contained PFOA, PFOS, and other toxic
substances.

8

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 34
 

35.

Defendant Buckeye Fire Equipment Company is a North Carolina corporation

with its principal place of business at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, NC 28086.
36.

At all times relevant to the present litigation Buckeye Fire Equipment Company

was engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of AFFF that contained PFOA, PFOS, and
other toxic substances.
37.

Defendant Chemguard is a Wisconsin corporation having its principal place of

business at One Stanton Street, Marinette, WI 54143.
38.

At all times relevant to the present litigation Chemguard was engaged in the

manufacture, marketing, and sale of AFFF that contained PFOA, PFOS, and other toxic
substances.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL COUNTS
PFOA Background
39.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8 or perfluorooctanoate) is a man-

made, manufactured chemical not found in nature that belongs to a group of fluorine-containing
chemicals called perfluorinated chemicals (PFC’s). These chemicals were and are used to make
household and commercial products that resist heat and chemical reactions, and repel oil, stains,
grease, and water as well as other uses.
40.

In 1947, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) began

producing PFOA via electrochemical fluorination.
41.

PFOA was once widely used in nonstick cookware, in surface coatings for stain-

resistant carpets and fabric, and in paper and cardboard food packaging (such as microwave
popcorn bags and fast food containers). PFOA was also used in fire-fighting foam and in many
products for the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, and electronics industries.

9

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 34
 

42.

Over the years, a number of companies, including but not limited to, Arkema,

Asahi, BASF, Clariant, Daikin, DuPont, and Solvay Selexis have manufactured PFOA within the
United States.
43.

PFOA is a fluorine-containing chemical that is primarily used in the production of

fluoropolymers such as poly-tetra-fluoro-ethylene (“PTFE”).
44.

PFOA is readily absorbed after consumption or inhalation, and it accumulates

primarily in the blood stream, kidney and liver.
45.

In 2006, eight major PFOA manufacturers agreed to participate in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA”) PFOA Stewardship Program. The participating
companies made voluntary commitments to reduce product content and facility emissions of
PFOA and related chemicals by 95%, no later than 2010.
46.

Further, PFOA / C8 has been studied extensively by, among others, a Science

Panel that was formed out of a class action settlement from a lawsuit arising from contamination
from DuPont’s Washington Works located in Wood County West Virginia. This panel consisted
of three epidemiologists who were specifically tasked with determining whether there was a
probably link between C8 and human diseases. The panel found probable links between PFOA
and kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy induced
hypertension (including preeclampsia), and hypercholesterolemia.
47.

In the May 2015 “Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances

(PFASs)2,” scientists and other professionals from a variety of disciplines, concerned about the
production and release into the environment of PFOA’s, called for greater regulation, restrictions,
                                                            
2

Blum A, Balan SA, Scheringer M, Trier X, Goldenman G, Cousins IT, Diamond M, Fletcher T, Higgins C,
Lindeman AE, Peaslee G, de Voogt P, Wang Z, Weber R. 2015. The Madrid statement on poly- and perfluoroalkyl
substances (PFASs). Environ Health Perspect 123:A107–A111; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509934

10

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 34
 

limits on the manufacture and handling of any PFOA containing product, and to develop safe
non-fluorinated alternatives to these products to avoid long-term harm to human health and the
environment.
48.

As of May 2016, the EPA has issued Lifetime Health Advisories and Health

Effects Support Documents for PFOA and PFOS 3 . The EPA identifies the concentration of
PFOA or PFOS in drinking water at or below which health effects are not anticipated to occur
over a lifetime of exposure at 70 parts per trillion (ppt). While health advisories are nonregulatory, they reflect the EPA’s assessment of the best available peer-reviewed science.
49.

PFOA gets into the environment from industrial facilities that make PFOA or use

PFOA to make other products. It also enters the environment when released from PFOAcontaining consumer and commercial products during their use and disposal.
50.

PFOA can remain in the environment, particularly in water, for many years and

can move through soil and into groundwater, or be carried in air.
51.

Human studies show associations between increased PFOA levels in blood and an

increased risk of several health effects, including high cholesterol levels, changes in thyroid
hormone, ulcerative colitis (autoimmune disease), pre-eclampsia (a complication of pregnancy
that includes high blood pressure), and kidney and testicular cancer.
52.

These injuries can arise months or years after exposure to PFOA.

53.

PFOA's extreme persistence in the environment and its toxicity, mobility and

bioaccumulation potential, pose potential adverse effects to human health and the environment.

                                                            
3

Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate, 81 Fed. Reg. 101 (May 25, 2016)

11

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 34
 

AFFF Background
54.

Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) is a Class-B firefighting foam. It is water

based and used to extinguish fires that are difficult to fight, particularly those that involve
petroleum or other flammable liquids.
55.

AFFF was introduced commercially in the mid-1960s and rapidly became the

primary fire fighting foam in the U.S. and many parts of the world. AFFF provided superior
performance over normal Protein foam, which had been in wide spread use since World War II.
56.

AFFF’s are synthetically formed by combining fluorine free hydrocarbon foaming

agents with highly fluorinated surfactants. When mixed with water, the resulting solution has the
characteristics needed to produce an aqueous film that spreads across the surface of a
hydrocarbon fuel. It is this film formation feature that provides fire extinguishment and is the
source of the designation, aqueous film forming foam.
57.

The Air Force began using PFC-based AFFF in 1970 to extinguish fuel-based

58.

Beginning in 2009, the USAF followed the EPA issued short-term provisional

fires.

health advisory of 400 ppt for PFA and 200 ppt of PFOS. The USAF now applies the current
EPA lifetime exposure health advisory of 70 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS.4
59.

Fluorosurfactants used in 3M’s AFFF were produced by a unique process known

as electrochemical fluorination (ECF). The ECF process results in a product that contains and/or
breaks down into compounds containing PFOA and/or PFOS.
60.

In the foam industry, concentrates are typically referred to as “3%” or “6%”

concentrate, depending on the mixture rate with water. AFFF concentrates contain about 60-90%
water and have a fluorine content of about 0.3-1.8%.
                                                            
4

Air Force applies new EPA guidance, Air Force Civil Engineer Center Public Affairs, May 19, 2016.

12

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 34
 

61.

AFFF procured in the U.S. was specified to conform to either a foam standard of

Underwriters Laboratory (UL) or a more stringent military specification (“MilSpec"). MilSpec
AFFF’s contain more fluorosurfactant and more fluorine than UL agents.
62.

AFFF’s are used by the U.S. military, oil refineries and other, petrochemical

industries, civil aviation and fire departments throughout the country.
AFFF Usage in the Fountain Watershed Area
63.

Upon information and belief, 3M, Ansul and National Foam each manufactured

AFFF containing PFCs, among other reasons, for sale to the Department of Defense, and
Defendants sold AFFF that was used at Peterson Airforce Base.
64.

It estimated that 75% of the military AFFF inventory is ECF-based product. This

is not surprising since for most of the past 30 years 3M was the primary supplier of AFFF to the
DOD [Department of Defense] stock system.5
65.

The military Qualified Products Database listed 3M AFFF products as early as

1970, National Foam products by 1973, and Ansul products as early as 1976.6
66.

According to a 2011 Department of Defense risk alert document, “through 2001,

the DoD purchased AFFF from 3M and/or Ansul, Inc. 3M supplied PFOS-based AFFF under the
product name, 3M Light Water AFFF.”7
67.

At any given time during its operation, Peterson housed and used thousands of

gallons of AFFF concentrate manufactured by Defendants. The AFFF was expected to reach
Peterson without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold to the Air Force, and it
did.
                                                            
5
 Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, “Estimated Quantities Of Aqueous Film Forming Foam in the United States”,
August, 2004.
 http://dcppe.org/Systems/AFFF/MIL-F-24385%20QPL%20History%20for%20Type%206%20AFFF.pdf 
7
 DoD Risk Alert #03-11, “Aqueous Film Forming Foam”,
http://www.denix.osd.mil/cmrmp/ecmr/ecprogrambasics/resources/chemical-material-emerging-risk-alert-for-afff/
6

13

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 34
 

68.

Air Force personnel conducted training exercises at Peterson including

firefighting and explosion training that used of AFFF manufactured by Defendants for decades.
69.

Upon information and belief, instructions and warning labels and material safety

data sheets that were provided with the AFFF by the Defendants, which, at least at significant
times, did not fully describe the health and environmental hazards of AFFF which they knew or
should have known.
70.

Upon information and belief, Defendants had known of these health and

environmental hazards for years. For example, by the mid-1980s, 3M began a major program to
review personnel handling of fluorochemicals and determined that fluorochemicals could
bioaccumulate.
71.

3M, who was the predominant manufacturer of AFFF, ceased production of

PFOS-based AFFF in 2002. Under pressure from the EPA, on May 16, 2000, 3M announced it
would phase out production of two synthetic chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, that it had developed
more than fifty years earlier.8
72.

An EPA internal memo on the day of 3M’s phase out announcement stated: “3M

data supplied to EPA indicated that these chemicals are very persistent in the environment, have
a strong tendency to accumulate in human and animal tissues and could potentially pose a risk to
human health and the environment over the long term…[PFOS] appears to combine Persistence,
Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree.”9

                                                            
8

3M press release, “3M Phasing Out Some Of Its Specialty Materials”, May 16, 2000,
http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/scotchgard/pdfs/226-0641.pdf#page=1
9
EPA internal memo, “Phaseout of PFOS”, May 16, 2000,
http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/scotchgard/pdfs/226-0629.pdf#page=2

14

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 34
 

73.

In contrast, 3M’s news release insisted that “our products are safe” while

extolling their “principles of responsible environmental management” as driving the cessation of
production.10
74.

An August 2016 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, “Preliminary Assessment

Report for Perfluorinated Compounds at Peterson Air Force Base”, confirmed the use of AFFF at
Peterson and that the fire training areas on the base were possible sources of PFC contamination
of the groundwater supply.11
75.

Upon information and belief, personnel at Peterson continued to use AFFF

containing PFCs for training and emergencies after 2002.
PFOA and PFOS Contamination
76.

For example, “It has reached the point where the water in all 32 of the Security

Water and Sanitation District’s municipal wells is contaminated with PFCs at levels exceeding
an EPA health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. At one well, PFCs have hit 1,370 PPT,
federal data show—nearly 20 times higher than the EPA health advisory. EPA officials
recommended that pregnant women and small children should not drink local water.”12
77.

In May 2016, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class were advised that their household

water was contaminated with PFCs at hazardous levels and advised to seek alternate drinking
water supplies.
78.

Groundwater wells tested within the Class Area have shown elevated

concentrations of PFCs.
                                                            
10

3M press release, “3M Phasing Out Some Of Its Specialty Materials”, May 16, 2000,
http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/scotchgard/pdfs/226-0641.pdf#page=1
11
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Final Preliminary Assessment Report for Perfluorinated Compounds at Peterson
Air Force Base El Paso County, Colorado”, August, 2016.
12
Bruce Finley, Drinking water in three Colorado cities contaminated with toxic chemicals above EPA limits,
DENVER POST (Jun. 15, 2016, 4:08 PM), http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/15/colorado-widefield-fountainsecurity-water-chemicals-toxic-epa/

15

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 34
 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
79.

Plaintiffs incorporate the forgoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at

length herein.
80.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on their own behalf and on behalf of

all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed subclasses and seek to certify and
maintain it as a class action under Rules 23(a); (b)(1) and/or (b)(2); and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to amendment and additional discovery as follows:
a.
b.
c.
81.

all residents of the Fountain Creek Watershed Area who have consumed water
from the municipal water supply (the “Municipal Water Bodily Injury Class”);
and
all residents of the Fountain Creek Watershed Area who have consumed water
from water supplied from private wells (the “Private Water Bodily Injury
Class”); and
all owners of real property in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area (the
“Property Damage Class”).
Plaintiffs are members of both the proposed Bodily Injury and Property Damage

Classes they seek to represent. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.
82.

Excluded from the Class are:
a.

b.
c.
d.
83.

Defendants, including any entity or division in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, along with their legal representative, employees, officers,
directors, assigns, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries
or affiliates;
the Judge to whom this case is assigned, the Judge’s staff, and the Judge’s
immediate family;
any class counsel or their immediate family members; and
all governmental entities.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further

investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded, divided into additional subclasses, or
modified in any other way.

16

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 34
 

Numerosity and Ascertainability
84.

This action meets the numerosity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), given

that the number of impacted residents in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area and property
owners, upon information and belief, has reached the thousands, making individual joinder of
class members’ respective claims impracticable. While the exact number of class members is not
yet known, a precise number can be ascertained from U.S. Federal Census records, the State of
Colorado, and the public records of the municipal entities in the Fountain Creek Watershed area,
and through other appropriate discovery. The resolution of the claims of the class members in a
single action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and the Court. It is expected that the
class members will number in the thousands.
85.

Finally, Class members can be notified of the pendency of this action by Court-

approved notice methods.
Typicality
86.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), Plaintiffs’ claims are

typical of the claims of class members, and arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ persons and real property, like all Class Members, have been damaged by Defendants’
misconduct in that they have incurred damages and losses related to the introduction of PFOA,
PFOS, and other toxic substances into the municipal water supplies operated in the Fountain
Creek Watershed area as well as private wells in the area, causing personal injury and property
damages.
87.

Furthermore, the factual bases of Defendants’ actions and misconduct are

common to all Class Members and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in

17

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 34
 

common injury to all Class Members. The relief Plaintiffs seek is typical of the relief sought for
absent Class Members.
Adequacy of Representation
88.

Plaintiffs will serve as fair and adequate class representatives as their interests, as

well as the interests of their counsel, do not conflict with the interest of other members of the
class they seek to represent. Further, Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and well
experienced in class action litigation and environmental tort litigation.
89.

Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on

behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither the Plaintiffs nor their
counsel have interests adverse to the Class.
Predominance of Common Issues
90.

There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and Class

Members that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class Members, making
it appropriate to bring this action under Rule 23(b)(3). The answers to these common questions
will advance resolution of the litigation as to all Class Members. These common legal and
factual issues include the following:
a)

Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

b)

Whether Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and

PFOS could increase health risks; Whether Defendants knew or should have known that their
manufacture of AFFF containing PFOA and PFOS was unreasonably dangerous;
c)

Whether Defendants knew or should have known that their AFFF contained

persistent, stable and mobile chemicals that were likely to contaminate groundwater water
supplies;

18

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 34
 

d)

Whether Defendants failed to sufficiently warn users of the potential for harm that

resulted from use of their products;
e)

Whether Defendants became aware of health and environmental harm caused by

PFOA and PFOS in their AFFF products and failed to warn users and Plaintiffs and the Class of
same
f)

The extent to which Defendants knew about the PFOA and PFOS contamination

in the water in the Fountain Creek Watershed area
g)

The extent to which Defendants knew about the PFOA and PFOS contamination

in the water supply systems operated by the municipal entities in the Fountain Creek Watershed
area;
h)

The extent to which Defendants knew about the PFOA and PFOS contamination

in the water supplied to private wells of residents of the Fountain Creek Watershed area
i)

Whether the Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class to refrain from

the actions that caused the contamination of the drinking water with PFOA and PFOS;
j)

Whether Defendants made unlawful and misleading representations or material

omissions with respect to the health impacts of PFOA and PFOS;
k)

For the Bodily Injury Classes, whether any health issue or bodily injury of

Plaintiffs and the Class are attributable to exposure of PFOA and PFOS in the water supply;
l)

For the Property Damage Classes, whether the PFOA and contamination caused

and continues to cause:
(1) a continuous invasion of the property rights of the Plaintiffs and Class such that
the property values in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area have and/or continue to
decline in value following the disclosure of the PFOA contamination,

19

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 34
 

(2) have substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ use and enjoyment of
their property
ii)

a continuous invasion of the property rights of the Plaintiffs and the Subclass; and

m)

Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages and other

monetary relief and other equitable relief, including but not limited to punitive damages, and if
so, in what amount.
n)

Whether the members of the Classes have sustained damages and the proper

measure of damages.
o)

Whether Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for their actions;

p)

Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their actions at the expense of

Plaintiffs and the classes.
Superiority
91.

The class action mechanism is superior to any other available means of the fair

and efficient adjudication of this case. Further, no unusual difficulties are likely to be
encountered in the management of this class action. Given the great number of Fountain Creek
Watershed Area residents impacted by Defendants’ conduct, it is impracticable for Plaintiffs and
the Class to individually litigate their respective claims for Defendants’ complained of conduct
as to do so would risk inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increase delays and expense
to both parties and the court system. Therefore, the class action mechanism presents considerably
less management challenges and provides the efficiency of a single adjudication and
comprehensive oversight by a single court.

20

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 34
 

CAUSES OF ACTION
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
Negligence
92.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
93.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colorado law.

94.

Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and PFOS was

hazardous to the environment and to human health.
95.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF, containing PFC’s, was hazardous to human health
and the environment.
96.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF containing PFC’s would result in the contamination
of the water supply in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area as a result of its proximity to Peterson
Airforce Base and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
97.

Knowing of the dangerous and hazardous properties of the AFFF, Defendants had

the duty to warn of the hazards associated with AFFF entering and poisoning the environment
and groundwater.
98.

Defendants knew or should have known that safety precautions would be required

to prevent the release of PFOA and PFOS into the surrounding environment.
99.

Defendants, as manufacturers, marketers, and sellers of AFFF owed Plaintiffs and

the Class a cognizable duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that AFFF was manufactured,

21

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 34
 

marketed, and sold in such a way as to ensure that the end users of AFFF were are of the
potential harm PFOA and PFOS can cause to human health and the environment.
100.

Upon learning of the release of the contaminants, Defendants owed Plaintiffs and

the Class a duty to warn and notify Plaintiffs and the classes of the release of the contamination
before it injured Plaintiffs and the Class and their property and/or to act reasonably to minimize
the damage to Plaintiffs and their property.
101.

Defendants breached their duty by allowing PFOS and PFOA to be released into

the drinking water (both the municipal and private wells) of the Fountain Creek Watershed Area
through their failure to warn and notify the end users of AFFF about the danger that PFOS and
PFOA would enter into the environment and groundwater.
102.

As such, the Defendants, negligently, gross negligently, recklessly, willfully,

wantonly, and/or intentionally breached their legal duties to the Plaintiffs and the class, causing
the contamination of drinking water in and around the residences of Plaintiffs and the Class.
103.

Defendants further breached the duties owed to the Plaintiffs and the Class by

failing to take reasonable, adequate, and sufficient steps or actions to eliminate, correct, or
remedy any contamination after it occurred.
104.

Defendants failure to notify the Plaintiffs and the Class in a timely manner of the

contamination of the Fountain Creek Watershed Area’s drinking water, and, consequently, the
presence of PFOA and PFOS in the real properties of Plaintiffs constitutes another breach of the
duties that Defendants owed the Plaintiffs and the Class.
105.

Defendants’ breaches of their duties were direct and proximate causes of

Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ damages and the imminent, substantial, and impending harm to their
homes and health.

22

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 34
 

106.

Defendants breaches of their duties caused the drinking water in both the

municipal and private wells to become contaminated with unsafe and dangerous levels of PFOA
and PFOS.
107.

Further, Defendants’ breach of their duty to timely notify the community and act

reasonably in warning of the presence of PFOA and PFOS in AFFF, Plaintiffs and the Class
were forestalled from undertaking effective and immediate remedial measures, and Plaintiffs and
the Class have expended and/or will be forced to expend significant resources to test, monitor,
and remediate the effects of Defendants’ negligence for many years into the future.
108.

Plaintiffs and the Class suffered foreseeable injuries and damages as a proximate

result of said Defendants’ negligent breach of their duties as set forth above. At the time
Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs and the Class, Defendants’ acts and/or failures to
act posed recognizable and foreseeable possibilities of danger to Plaintiffs and the Class so
apparent as to entitle them to be protected against such actions or inactions.
109.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Classes seek damages from Defendants, in an

amount to be determined at trial, directly resulting from their injuries to their persons and
property, in a sufficient amount to compensate them for the injuries and losses sustained and to
restore Plaintiffs and the Class to their original position, including but not limited to the
difference between the current value of their properties and such value if the harm had not been
done, the cost of repair or restoration, the value of the use of the continuous trespass, injuries to
persons, including the need for medical monitoring as an element of damages, and actual,
consequential, and nominal damages, flowing from the negligence which are the natural and
proximate result of Defendants conduct in an amount to be proved at trial.

23

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 34
 

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Private Nuisance
110.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
111.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to the laws of Colorado.

112.

Plaintiffs and the Property Damage Class, as described above, are owners of real

property with the right of possession.
113.

In a private nuisance claim, it must be established that (1) the defendant's conduct

unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property, (2) the
interference was so substantial that it would have been offensive or caused inconvenience or
annoyance to a reasonable person in the community, and (3) the interference was either negligent
or intentional. See, Public Service Co. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 391 (Colo.2001).
114.

At all times relevant to the present cause of action, Defendants manufactured,

marketed, and sold the AFFF that was used at Peterson Air Force Base and the Colorado Springs
Municipal Airport that resulted in the contamination of the water supply relied upon by Plaintiffs
and Property Damage Class at all relevant times.
115.

At the time the above-described, affirmative, voluntary, and intentional acts were

performed by Defendants, Defendants had good reason to know or expect that large quantities of
PFOA and PFOS would and/or could be introduced into the properties of Plaintiffs and the
Property Damage Class.
116.

The above-described affirmative, voluntary, and intentional acts were performed

with the reckless disregard of the potential for PFOA and PFOS to be disbursed through the
water and onto the land and property of Plaintiffs and the Property Damage Class.

24

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 34
 

117.

Defendants’ negligent, reckless, willful, and/or wanton actions and/or intentional

failures to act caused an unknown quantity of PFOA, PFOS and possibly other toxic substances
to be released into the drinking water for Fountain Creek Watershed Area.
118.

The introduction of unknown quantities of PFOA, PFOS and other toxic

substances onto the property of the Plaintiffs and Property Damage Class unreasonably interfered
with the use and enjoyment of their property.
119.

The potential danger from the drinking water at their residences has caused the

Plaintiffs and the Class significant inconvenience and expense.
120.

This constitutes a substantial interference with the use of the properties such tthat

it is offensive and has caused significant inconvenience or annoyance.
121.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for

the damages that they have suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions, the amount of which will
be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Medical Monitoring
122.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
123.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colorado law.

124.

Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and PFOS was

hazardous to the environment and to human health.
125.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF, containing PFC’s, was hazardous to human health
and the environment.

25

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 34
 

126.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF containing PFC’s would result in the contamination
of the water supply in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area as a result of its proximity to Peterson
Airforce Base and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
127.

A claim for medical monitoring requires (1) significant exposure to a hazardous

substance through the tortious actions of defendant; (2) an increased risk of contracting a serious
latent disease; (3) increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonably
necessary; and (4) procedures exist which make the early detection and treatment of the disease
possible and beneficial. See Cook v. Rockwell International Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1468, 1477 (D.
Colo. 1991).
128.

The Plaintiffs and Bodily Injury Classes have been exposed to PFOA, PFOS, and

potentially other toxic substances that resulted from the use and storage of the Defendants’ AFFF
at Peterson Air Force Base and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
129.

As described more fully above in this Complaint, PFOA and PFOS exposure

seriously increase the risk of contracting numerous diseases.
130.

The significantly increased risks associated with exposure to PFOA, make

periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonable and necessary.
131.

A thorough medical monitoring plan can and should be developed for the

Plaintiffs and Bodily Injury Classes that will assist in the early detection and beneficial treatment
of the numerous diseases that can develop as a result of exposure to PFOA and PFOS.

26

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 34
 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Products Liability, Failure to Warn
132.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
133.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colorado law.

134.

Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and PFOS was

hazardous to the environment and to human health.
135.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF, containing PFC’s, was hazardous to human health
and the environment.
136.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF containing PFC’s would result in the contamination
of the water supply in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area as a result of its proximity to Peterson
Airforce Base and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
137.

Knowing of the dangerous and hazardous properties of the AFFF, Defendants had

the duty to warn of the hazards associated with AFFF entering and poisoning the environment
and groundwater.
138.

Defendants failed to provide sufficient warning to the end users of AFFF,

including Peterson Air Force Base and the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, that the use and
storage of Defendants’ product would cause the product to be released into the environment and
cause the contamination of the environment, groundwater, and drinking water, with PFOA,
PFOS, and potentially other toxic substances.

27

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 34
 

139.

Further, this contamination then led to the exposure of residents of the Fountain

Creek Watershed area to the toxins and increased their risk of numerous diseases as more fully
set forth above.
140.

Adequate instructions and warnings on the AFFF products could have reduced or

avoided these foreseeable risks of harm to both the residents of the Fountain Creek Watershed
Area and their property.
141.

Had Defendants provided adequate warnings, the residents of the Fountain Creek

Watershed Area could have taken measures to avoid or lessen their exposure.
142.

Had Defendants provided adequate warnings, the users of AFFF at Peterson Air

Force Base and the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport could have taken steps to reduce or
prevent the release of PFOA, PFOS, and potentially other toxic substances into the environment,
groundwater, and drinking water.
143.

Defendants’ failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of the

environmental and health impacts from PFOA, PFOS, and potentially other toxic substances, that
came from the use and storage of AFFF at Peterson Air Force Base and Colorado Springs
Municipal Airport.
144.

As such, Defendant’s failure to provide adequate and sufficient warnings for the

AFFF that they manufactured, marketed, and sold renders the AFFF a defective product.
145.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct and the resulting contamination, the value and

marketability of the property of the Plaintiffs’ and Property Damage Class has been and will
continue to be diminished. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered the need for and the
cost of remediation of their properties and or mitigation systems for those properties, and the cost
of alterative water. As a result of the contamination Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have lost

28

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 34
 

use and enjoyment of their properties and have suffered annoyance and discomfort,
inconvenience and annoyance as a consequence of the contamination of their properties by
Defendants.
146.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct and the resulting contamination, the Plaintiffs

and the Bodily Injury Classes have been injured in that their exposure to PFOS, PFOA, and
potentially other toxic substances has caused them to develop illnesses associated with this
exposure as more fully described and/or significantly increased their risk of developing those
illnesses.
147.

As a result of Defendants' manufacture, sale or distribution of a defective product,

Defendants are strictly liable in damages to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes.
148.

Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, reckless and/or conducted with a reckless

indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Classes.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Products Liability, Defective Design
149.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
150.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colorado law.

151.

Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and PFOS was

hazardous to the environment and to human health.
152.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF, containing PFC’s, was hazardous to human health
and the environment.

29

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 34
 

153.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF containing PFC’s would result in the contamination
of the water supply in the Fountain Creek Watershed Area as a result of its proximity to Peterson
Airforce Base and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
154.

Knowing of the dangerous and hazardous properties of the AFFF, Defendants

could have manufactured, marketed, and sold alternative designs or formulations of AFFF that
did not contain PFC’s.
155.

These alternative designs and/or formulations were already available, practical,

and technologically feasible.
156.

The use of these alternative designs would have reduced or prevented the

reasonably foreseeable harm to persons and property that was caused by the Defendants’
manufacture, marketing, and sale of AFFF that contained PFC’s.
157.

Additionally, the AFFF that was manufactured, marketed, and sold by the

Defendants contained PFC’s that were so toxic and dangerous to human health and the
environment, the toxic chemicals were so mobile and persistent, that the act of designing,
formulating, manufacturing, marketing, and selling this product was unreasonably dangerous
under the circumstances.
158.

Further, this contamination then led to the exposure of residents of the Fountain

Creek Watershed area to the toxins and increased their risk of numerous diseases as more fully
set forth above.
159.

The AFFF manufactured, marketed, and sold by the Defendants was a defective

design as the foreseeable risk of harm could have been reduced or eliminated by the adoption of
a reasonable, alternative design that was not unreasonably dangerous.

30

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 34
 

160.

Defendants’ defective design and formulation of AFFF was a direct and

proximate cause of the environmental and health impacts from PFOA, PFOS, and potentially
other toxic substances, that came from the use and storage of AFFF at Peterson Air Force Base
and Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
161.

As a result of Defendants’ defective design and formulation of AFFF, the

resulting contamination, the value and marketability of the property of the Plaintiffs’ and
Property Damage Class has been and will continue to be diminished. Plaintiffs and the Class
Members have suffered the need for and the cost of remediation of their properties and or
mitigation systems for those properties, and the cost of alterative water. As a result of the
contamination Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have lost use and enjoyment of their properties
and have suffered annoyance and discomfort, inconvenience and annoyance as a consequence of
the contamination of their properties by Defendants.
162.

As a result of Defendants’ defective design and formulation of AFFF, the

resulting contamination, the Plaintiffs and the Bodily Injury Classes have been injured in that
their exposure to PFOS, PFOA, and potentially other toxic substances has caused them to
develop illnesses associated with this exposure as more fully described and/or significantly
increased their risk of developing those illnesses.
163.

As a result of Defendants' design and formulation of a defective product,

Defendants are strictly liable in damages to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes.
164.

Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, reckless and/or conducted with a reckless

indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Classes.

31

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 34
 

AS AND FOR AN SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment
165.

Plaintiffs hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every allegation in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
166.

This cause of action is brought pursuant to Colorado law.

167.

Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to PFOA and PFOS was

hazardous to the environment and to human health.
168.

Defendants knew or should have known that the manner in which they were

manufacturing, marketing, and selling AFFF, containing PFC’s, was hazardous to human health
and the environment.
169.

Even after Defendants’ were made aware of the dangers to human health and the

environement of AFFF that contained PFC’s, the continued to manufacture their product.
170.

The Defendants’ continued to profit from the manufacture and sale of PFC

containing AFFF after learning of the unreasonably dangerous nature of their product.
171.

Defendants’ did not promptly cease selling or recall their PFC containing AFFF

after learning of the dangers to human health and the environment from PFC’s.
172.

As such, the Court should not permit the Defendants’ to retain the benefits in the

form of profits from the sale of PFC containing AFFF and the expenditures saved by the
Defendants’ when they did not promptly develop or invest in non-PFC containing AFFF.
173.

These expenditures saved and profits made should be awarded as a remedy in the

present action.

174.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Plaintiffs and the Class hereby repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every

allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
32

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 34
 

175.

Upon information and belief, Defendants engaged in willful, wanton, malicious,

and or/reckless conduct that caused the foregoing property damage, nuisances, and injuries upon
the persons and properties of Plaintiffs and the Class, disregarding their protected rights.
176.

Defendants’ willful, wanton, malicious, and/or reckless conduct includes but is

not limited to Defendants’ failure to take all reasonable measures to ensure PFOA-containing
waste would be effectively disposed of and not discharged into the surrounding environment.
177.

Defendants have caused great harm to the property and water supplies of

Plaintiffs and the Class and demonstrated an outrageous conscious disregard for their safety with
implied malice, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs and the Class demand judgment against Defendants, and
each of them, jointly and severally, and request the following relief from the Court:
A.

an award certifying the proposed Bodily Injury and Property Damage Classes,

designating Plaintiffs as the named representatives and designating the undersigned as Class
Counsel;
B.

a declaration that Defendants acted with negligence, gross negligence, and/or

willful, wanton, and careless disregard for the health, safety, and property of Plaintiffs and
members of the Class.
C.

an order requiring that Defendants implement a testing and monitoring protocol to

test each property and its drinking water for the properties belonging to the members of the
Property Damage Class and, where appropriate, to implement appropriate remedial measures.
D.

an order establishing a medical monitoring protocol for Plaintiffs and the Bodily

Injury Class.

33

 Case 1:16-cv-02394 Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 34
 

E.

an award to Plaintiffs and the Class of general, compensatory, exemplary,

consequential, nominal, and punitive damages;
F.

an order for an award of attorney fees and costs, as provided by law;

G.

an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law, and

H.

an order for all such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any and all issues in this matter so triable pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
Respectfully submitted,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC

MCDIVITT LAW FIRM

By: /s/ Hunter Shkolnik
Hunter Shkolnik PHV pending
Paul J. Napoli, PHV pending
Louise Caro, PHV pending
360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
New York, NY, 10017
(212) 397-1000
hunter@napolilaw.com
pnapoli@napolilaw.com
lcaro@napolilaw.com

By: /s/ Michael W. McDivitt
Michael W. McDivitt (#5835)
19 E. Cimarron Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 471-3700
mmcdivitt@mcdivittlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative classes
September 22, 2016

34