A group of New Milford, Connecticut residents reached a settlement with Kimberly-Clark over alleged PFAS contamination. Qualification centers on people who lived near its New Milford plant and owned property or used an affected water supply. PFAS are described as forever chemicals.
Law360 reported the settlement in its settlement coverage, following the 2024 case DePaul et al v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. in federal court in Connecticut.
Table of Contents
- How the New Milford claims arose
- Who the case was brought for
- Why the court ruling matters for expectations
- What to have ready now
How the New Milford claims arose
The lawsuit alleged Kimberly-Clark used PFAS to make tissues including Kleenex at its New Milford plant. Reuters, via PFAS Project Lab, described the alleged releases in its factory pollution report. The alleged paths were smokestacks, landfill runoff and groundwater seepage.
Those paths allegedly carried PFAS into nearby properties and drinking water. The plaintiff firm said it sued for people living near the northwest Connecticut facility whose water supply was contaminated. It sought damages for property owners' financial losses.
Who the case was brought for
The focus was nearby residents, not all Connecticut consumers. Residency near the facility and use of an affected water supply were central.
Property ownership mattered because the suit sought recovery for owners' financial losses. The proposed class also sought whole-house water filters and a funded medical-monitoring program, plus compensatory and punitive damages. Readers can compare their history to that pattern:.
- lived near the New Milford facility during the relevant period
- used private-well or other local drinking water tied to the area
- owned affected property and faced related financial loss
Why the court ruling matters for expectations
U.S. Judge Kari Dooley dismissed the Third Amended Complaint on March 27, 2026 without further leave to amend. Kirkland & Ellis summarized the ruling in its litigation update.
The court found plaintiffs' well PFAS was not elevated versus statewide background wells. It also found the claimed injuries were not tied to Kimberly-Clark. That history does not decide settlement eligibility. It does mean location alone, concern about PFAS, or use of Kleenex will not prove a claim.
What to have ready now
Settlement listings have not published a claim form, deadline, payment amount or final eligibility rule. Residents should therefore watch for court-approved notice rather than filing through an unofficial form. Preserve papers that link person, place and water.
Keep deeds, residency records and well-test results in one folder. Useful records include purchase deeds, tax bills, leases, utility bills, government IDs showing address dates, dated well tests, bottled-water receipts and filter installation bills. Keep originals together and keep copies where you can find them quickly.