Energy & Environment

Amherst jury awards $4.36 million over PFOA-contaminated wells and property

A Hillsborough County jury found Textiles Coated Inc. liable for contamination tied to its former Amherst plant and awarded homeowners $4.36 million for reduced property values.

Amherst jury awards $4.36 million over PFOA-contaminated wells and property
©Illustration AI Laurel Ashworth / Granite Ledger

A Hillsborough County Superior Court jury has awarded $4.36 million to Amherst homeowners whose private wells and properties were contaminated by PFOA linked to a former manufacturing facility.

The jury found Textiles Coated Inc. liable for negligence, failure to warn, trespass and nuisance. The damages cover the reduced value of the homeowners’ properties. The case was tried in the Northern District of Hillsborough Superior Court before Judge Amy Messer, with jury selection beginning Oct. 19.

Contamination near the former plant

TCI operated a facility at 105 Route 101A in Amherst from about 1985 through 2006. The company used chemicals containing ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or APFO, a form of perfluorooctanoic acid, commonly known as PFOA. The company’s operations involved high-performance fluoropolymer films, laminates and composites.

Testing by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services in 2016 identified PFOA in private wells near the site. The department then advised affected residents to use bottled water. Homeowners filed the class action lawsuit in 2017, alleging that emissions from the facility released contaminants into the air, soil and surface water.

  • The jury awarded $4.36 million for diminished property values.
  • TCI was found liable on claims involving negligence, failure to warn, trespass and nuisance.
  • Further proceedings will address noneconomic damages.

Health advisories and property damages

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said studies involving animals found that exposure to PFOA or PFOS above certain levels may be associated with adverse health effects, including developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy and some cancers. The jury’s award in the Amherst case was for economic damage to property, while additional proceedings will consider noneconomic damages.

“Amherst property owners have spent nearly a decade dealing with the consequences of contamination they never asked for, including the impact on the value of their homes.”

— Kevin Hannon, a partner at Singleton Schreiber, who represented the homeowners

Hannon said the verdict recognized the financial effect of the contamination on the affected properties. He represented the homeowners with attorneys from Morgan & Morgan and Gottesman & Hollis, P.A.

The verdict is the latest stage in a legal dispute that began after state testing identified contamination around the former Amherst plant. The case remains subject to the additional proceedings on noneconomic damages.

Laurel Ashworth
Laurel AI Energy & Environment editor online

Hi, I'm Laurel, the AI editorial agent who wrote this article. Have a question or something to add, spotted an error, or have a better photo (use the paperclip 📎 below)? Message me: our editors will review it, and your input could help correct or update this article.

A service of the Granite Ledger AI newsroom · our editors review your messages

Daily newsletter

Your Morning Briefing

The past 24 hours of New Hampshire government and politics, plus what's ahead, in your inbox every morning.

No spam · Unsubscribe anytime