California Utility Could Face Record Wildfire Claims Despite Following Regulations

Legal Doctrine Holds Southern California Edison Liable Even Without Negligence

Southern California Edison faces billions in potential damages from the Los Angeles wildfires under California’s unique “inverse condemnation” doctrine, even if investigators find no wrongdoing by the utility. Multiple lawsuits filed this week by Eaton fire victims target the company’s high-voltage transmission towers as the source of the devastating blaze. The fires, which have claimed 24 lives and destroyed over 6,000 structures, are expected to become the costliest in U.S. history, with damages potentially reaching tens of billions of dollars.

5 Key Points

• California’s “inverse condemnation” doctrine allows victims to collect damages from utilities without proving negligence.
• Southern California Edison’s liability could reach $3.9 billion under state insurance fund caps.
• CEO Pedro Pizarro reports no anomalies in transmission lines were detected before or after fire ignition.
• Lawsuits cite eyewitness accounts of flames near transmission towers as evidence.
• The Palisades and Eaton fires have destroyed more than 6,000 structures and killed at least 24 people.

California’s $21B Insurance Fund Faces Historic Test

Southern California Edison’s potential liability from the Los Angeles wildfires could overwhelm California’s wildfire insurance fund, established in 2019 to maintain utility solvency. While the fund provides $21 billion in total coverage, Edison’s exposure is capped at $3.9 billion – a fraction of expected damages. “The price tag of these wildfires will be something we’ve never seen before,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Mikal Watts, who has previously represented wildfire victims in multiple California cases. Insurance experts predict total damages will far exceed the company’s cap and traditional insurance coverage, potentially making these fires the costliest disaster in U.S. history. The fund, intended to ensure full compensation for victims while keeping utilities solvent, now faces its largest test since its creation.

Get a free legal case review today

Did you develop any of the following injuries after being exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? * Choose one Ulcerative Colitis Kidney Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Testicular Cancer Prostate Cancer Bladder Cancer Thyroid Disease Liver Cancer Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma None of the above Were you exposed to Fire Fighting Foam (AFFF)? *

YesNo

Which medication(s) did you take during your pregnancy? * Choose one Tylenol Acetaminophen Alka-Seltzer Coricidin Dayquil Excedrin FluTherapy Midol Mucinex Nyquil Panadol Robitussin Sinex Sudafed Theraflu Other Medication(s) Was your child diagnosed with Autism, ADHD or another condition? * Choose one Autism/Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Asperger’s Syndrome Kanner’s Syndrome Childhood Disintegrative Disorder Pervasive Developmental Disorder Other Medical Condition How old was your child at the time of diagnosis? *

Under 18 years old18+ years old

Did the accident occur within the last 2 years? *

YesNo

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

ZIP Code *

Phone Number *

What is your case type? * Choose one -------------------- Asbestos Baby Formula Camp Lejeune Clergy Abuse CPAP Elmiron Exactech Firefighting Foam FTX Exchange Hair Relaxer Hernia Mesh Paraquat PFAS Roundup Sex Abuse Social Media Talcum Powder Tepezza Tylenol -------------------- Birth Injury Car Accident FELA Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accident Slip and Fall Trucking Accident Uber & Lyft Rideshare Workplace Injury Weight Loss Wrongful Death -------------------- Something Else

Human Verification *

I understand and agree that (a) submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship, (b) I am not already represented by an attorney for this matter, (c) the information I submit will be shared with a law firm, and (d) I have read and accepted the terms and conditions of the Privacy Policy, Terms of Service and Legal Disclaimer. Further, I consent to being contacted by a law firm or its agent after submitting this request.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Edison Defends Safety Record Despite Mounting Lawsuits

This week, multiple lawsuits filed in Los Angeles state court target Southern California Edison’s role in the Eaton Fire, which has destroyed thousands of homes east of the city. The suits allege the company’s high-voltage transmission towers ignited the blaze during dangerous high winds and low humidity conditions. Edison CEO Pedro Pizarro strongly contested these claims in a Bloomberg TV interview, stating, “Typically, when you have a fire caused by electrical infrastructure, you do see a signature voltage drop or current increasing, and we have not seen that in our study.” The company reports no detected operating anomalies on transmission wires in the 12 hours before the fire or up to an hour after ignition. Pizarro emphasized that Edison followed all protocols for wildfire mitigation approved by state regulators.

‘Inverse Condemnation’ Creates Unique Legal Challenge

According to Daniel Farber, professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, California’s application of inverse condemnation to utilities sets up an unprecedented legal scenario. “California is very unusual in that normally this doctrine only applies to government entities,” says Farber, who specializes in energy and environmental law. Traditionally used by property owners seeking compensation for government land seizures, the doctrine now allows fire victims to collect damages if utility equipment caused the blaze – even without proof of negligence. Attorney Gerald Singleton, who filed one of the first Eaton Fire lawsuits, explains the rare nature of utility defenses: “There are times where a utility will say that their equipment started it, but they weren’t negligent. That’s very rare.” The lawsuits seek damages for lost wages, rebuilding costs, and other losses that plaintiffs’ attorneys say will likely vastly exceed available insurance coverage.