Blogs

New Jersey’s PFAS Hotbed: Legal and Regulatory Developments in the Garden State

The Garden State has become the proving ground for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). New Jersey is not only one of the most densely populated states in the nation, but it is also a hub of industrial activity with a long legacy of chemical manufacturing, military installations, and refinery operations. Combine that history with some of the most aggressive regulators in the country, and you get a perfect storm: a PFAS hotbed where legal, regulatory, and insurance battles are playing out at high volume and high stakes.

New Jersey is setting the tone for how the PFAS crisis will be addressed nationwide, and its regulators are among the first to impose strict maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water. Its Attorney General is spearheading lawsuits against some of the world's largest chemical manufacturers. And its courts are already becoming testing grounds for PFAS coverage disputes. For carriers, reinsurers, and defense counsel, the developments in New Jersey are more than local headlines; they are a preview of the next wave of toxic tort litigation across the United States.

New Jersey as Ground Zero

Few states combine the historical industrial footprint and environmental vulnerability that New Jersey does. Generations of chemical production and military operations have left PFAS compounds embedded in the soil, groundwater, and drinking water supplies across the state. Sites along the Delaware River in South Jersey and around former military bases have tested at alarming levels of PFAS, placing thousands of residents at risk of exposure.

This is not theoretical risk. New Jersey communities are grappling with real contamination, costly cleanup projects, and health concerns tied to exposure. For insurers and corporations, that means litigation is not a distant possibility—it is happening now, with plaintiffs, municipalities, and state agencies all pressing claims.

NJDEP Leads the Charge in Regulatory Landscape

What truly sets New Jersey apart is the speed and aggressiveness of its regulators. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has only recently begun to propose enforceable national drinking water standards, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) was already several steps ahead.

• In 2018, New Jersey became the first state to set an MCL for PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid), at just 13 parts per trillion.
• By 2020, the state imposed strict limits for perfluorononanoic acid (PFOA) (14 ppt) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (13 ppt), levels far below the federal advisory levels at the time.
• These MCLs forced water systems and industrial facilities into immediate compliance efforts, raising costs and triggering liability questions.

New Jersey has also launched lawsuits to recover “natural resource damages” from PFAS manufacturers and users, demanding billions for environmental restoration and water treatment infrastructure. These claims are sweeping in scope and force defendants into high-stakes litigation where damages can easily reach catastrophic levels.

Litigation Trends: A Wave Building in the Courts

Regulation is only half the story. The courtroom is where the PFAS battle becomes existential for companies and insurers alike, and New Jersey has positioned itself at the forefront of this fight.

• The New Jersey Attorney General has filed lawsuits against industry giants, including DuPont, 3M, Chemours, and Solvay, alleging widespread contamination of water supplies and natural resources.
• Local water authorities and towns have filed their own claims, seeking reimbursement for the costly installation of advanced filtration systems.
• Toxic tort suits are on the rise as Individual and class actions emerge, with plaintiffs alleging personal injury from exposure to contaminated water.
• Carriers are already pushing back, asserting pollution exclusions, late notice defenses, and other coverage bars. Courts in New Jersey are becoming early arbiters of whether general liability policies will shoulder PFAS-related defense and indemnity costs.

This litigation surge has clear echoes of asbestos and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), waves that began in localized courts before expanding into sprawling, nationwide mass torts.

Why New Jersey Sets the Tone Nationally

Why does New Jersey matter so much beyond its borders? Because history shows that what starts in New Jersey rarely stays in New Jersey.

• States across the country frequently look to NJDEP when crafting their own drinking water standards and cleanup obligations. Already, states like Michigan, New York, and California have mirrored or adapted New Jersey’s MCL approach.
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys see New Jersey as fertile ground for testing theories of liability, damage models, and scientific evidence. Successful claims here are quickly exported to other jurisdictions.
• The Environmental Protection Agency and other federal regulators pay close attention to New Jersey’s enforcement strategies, and outcomes in the Garden State often shape national policy.
• Carriers and reinsurers use early PFAS claim data from New Jersey to model national exposure. If litigation costs spiral here, expect underwriting, pricing, and exclusions to shift across the board.

For insurers and defendants nationwide, ignoring New Jersey’s PFAS landscape is not an option. It is the canary in the coal mine.

Implications for Carriers and Defense Counsel

The convergence of strict regulation, aggressive enforcement, and fast-moving litigation creates a volatile environment for carriers. The implications are significant:

• Commercial General Liability policies are under the microscope, with pollution exclusions, “sudden and accidental” provisions, and trigger-of-coverage disputes all in play. Courts in New Jersey could set the tone for how these defenses succeed or fail nationwide.
• Even before indemnity exposure, the sheer cost of defending municipalities, utilities, and class actions is staggering. Carriers will need to prepare for protracted and expensive litigation.
• The combination of personal injury suits, property damage claims, and natural resource damages creates the potential for layered liability, multiplying the financial impact.
• Strategic defense is critical, and defense counsel must be prepared to challenge the science, scrutinize causation, and leverage early motion practice to limit exposure.

For carriers, the lesson is clear: New Jersey’s PFAS environment is not just a state-specific concern; it is a model for what the PFAS crisis will look like nationally.

Conclusion

New Jersey has earned its reputation as a PFAS hotbed. With regulators moving aggressively, courts flooded with litigation, and insurers drawn into coverage disputes, the Garden State is providing a real-time preview of the future of PFAS law nationwide.

For carriers, reinsurers, and defense counsel, monitoring New Jersey’s developments is not optional, it is essential. The litigation outcomes, regulatory enforcement strategies, and coverage rulings taking shape today will influence not only the millions at stake in New Jersey but also the trajectory of PFAS litigation nationwide.

PFAS is not the next asbestos, it is already here. And New Jersey is showing the rest of the nation exactly how costly, complex, and consequential this litigation category will be.