3M Hit with $22.5 Million Verdict in Military Earplugs Trial

3M Loses Another Earplugs Lawsuit

3M suffered another legal setback on December 13, 2021 when a Florida jury awarded $22.5 million to a plaintiff who alleged that defective 3M military earplugs caused hearing loss and tinnitus. The verdict is the biggest judgment against 3M in the earplug lawsuits yet. The verdict follows another last month that awarded $13 million to a U.S. Army sergeant.

In the most recent trial, the jury found that defective 3M earplugs caused former U.S. Army soldier Theodore Finley’s hearing damage. Finley was awarded $7.5 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages.

“We will ensure that 3M is held fully accountable for putting profits over the safety of those who served our nation,” said lead plaintiffs’ attorneys in a statement following the verdict.

Given the significance of the verdict, we anticipate that 3M will appeal. It’s important to note that 3M has denied all liability and/or wrongdoing and there have been no settlements in these cases yet.

JANUARY 2022 UPDATE: Due to fast-moving developments in this litigation, Riddle & Brantley can no longer accept additional 3M earplug claims. We anticipate that a global settlement may be on the horizon — please stay tuned to our website for the latest updates as more information becomes available.

The 8th Recent Earplugs Trial Loss for 3M

The verdict was the eighth loss for 3M in ongoing 3M military earplugs lawsuits so far. Prior to the $22.5 million awarded in this most recent trial, juries have awarded compensation totaling more than $29 million. The court losses will put increased pressure on 3M to consider a “global settlement” that would cover all plaintiffs involved in the litigation. 3M earplugs litigation is already the largest multi-district litigation in United States history, with more than 200,000 plaintiffs involved.

Recent Court Losses May Pressure 3M to Settle Earplug Lawsuits

The multi-million court losses are expected to increase pressure on 3M to consider settling the hundreds of thousands of claims it faces. Legal analysts anticipate that any potential global settlement may run into the billions of dollars. As of late 2021, 3M has not agreed to any settlements in military earplugs litigation and the company strongly denies any liability and/or wrongdoing.

Do You Have a 3M Earplugs Claim?

JANUARY 2022 UPDATE: Due to fast-moving developments in this litigation, Riddle & Brantley can no longer accept additional 3M earplug claims. We anticipate that a global settlement may be on the horizon — please stay tuned to our website for the latest updates as more information becomes available.

You may qualify for a 3M military earplugs lawsuit if you’ve served in active duty in the U.S. military and suffered hearing loss or tinnitus potentially due to defective 3M earplugs.

In order to file a 3M earplugs lawsuit, you must meet the following criteria:

• Served in the U.S. military between 2003 and 2015
• Used military-issued 3M Combat Arms dual-ended earplugs during your service
• Served in active combat
• Been diagnosed with hearing loss and/or tinnitus within 2 years of discharge
• Been honorably discharged
• Not have Kentucky, Tennessee or Louisiana listed as your state of residency on your DD-214

For a FREE, no-obligation consultation with an experienced 3M earplug lawsuit attorney, please call 1-800-525-7111 or complete the fast and easy form below. There is no obligation, and we don’t get paid unless you do. If we don’t recover compensation for you, you won’t pay any attorney fees. Call 1-800-525-7111 and let’s talk.

Since 1985, Riddle & Brantley has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims of others’ negligence (see disclaimer below) and we are ready to help however we can.

“By far the best law firm that actually cares about helping veterans.”

–B. Fields, Riddle & Brantley client

*** Disclaimer: The results mentioned are intended to illustrate the type of cases handled by the firm. These results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and they should not be construed to constitute a promise or guarantee of a particular result in any particular case. Every case is different, and the outcome of any case depends upon a variety of factors unique to that case.