California Wildfire Puts Mass Tort Lawyers on Government’s Side

The dozens of lawsuits filed against Edison International Inc. over its alleged role in the devastating Eaton Fire could overhaul how mass tort attorneys approach cases involving natural disasters in the future.

Los Angeles County’s latest lawsuit against Edison—the third in seven years—once again alleges the utility’s equipment sparked the Eaton Fire, one of California’s most damaging fires, destroying about 9,400 structures causing 18 deaths. The government seeks to recover costs and damages associated with the fire and its aftermath.

This lawsuit brings notoriety to the mass tort practice, but it also assists in pushing forward better settlements for the victims we represent. We will continue to strive for justice and overall industry reform where victims are hurt to prevent these situations from happening again.

Edison International also faces more than 40 additional lawsuits from residents related to the Eaton Fire. Since the Camp Fire in 2018, legislation has shifted to supporting wildfire victims. Between newly formed wildfire funds and tax regulations saving already undercompensated victims from having more withheld, legal and regulatory development has played a supporting role. Liability standards continue to put the appropriate responsibility on the utility companies, when at fault.

The next steps should be greater regulation to ensure appropriate mitigation techniques within the technology and providing of the utility. We saw significant changes over the past decade regarding clearing requirements and preemptive power shut-offs, but it isn’t enough.

Mass tort attorneys, of which I am one, try to push toward a successful resolution as quickly as possible while pushing for the types of systemic changes that reduce harm and increase accountability. Having another contender on our side in the fight is helpful, especially one as large and well-known as Los Angeles County.

The county’s claims focus on the infrastructure that was lost in the fire. If successful, the government will use awarded compensation to help restore and rebuild the community. A successful outcome could support greater accountability by utility companies in future cases.

Cases such as the county’s against Edison International often have a ripple effect, prompting an array of legal and regulatory developments. The PG&E Corp. bankruptcy filing, stemming from the North Bay and Camp Fires of 2017 and 2018, respectively, prompted changes including a wildfire fund and tax safeguards that were put in place for legal settlements.

Turning off power during times of perceived fire danger seems not to be a reliable solution. There were reported concerns that attempts to cut off power in the region amid a windstorm may have contributed to sparking the Eaton Fire.

Any legal settlement should focus on implementing additional safeguards within infrastructure and containing the spread of potential fires to smaller, manageable areas. I encourage my fellow mass tort attorneys to consider how we fit into this. The biggest benefit we bring to the table is our wealth of collective experience.

The mass tort world is relatively small. Most of us have worked together or worked on similar issues. This gives us an advantage when moving forward with both litigation and settlement. We can take that knowledge and use it to our clients’ advantage.

The PG&E litigation and bankruptcy case taught the mass tort bar a lot—and especially what we don’t want to do again. We know the same experts or ones with similar backgrounds and expertise. We know their arguments and, subsequently, how to bolster our case.

Timing is the most crucial lesson for our clients and the victims of this fire. We want to ensure justice is had in a timely manner, which is easier said than done due to the complexity of each person’s claim. The process needs to ensure there is sufficient compensation for all parties involved, and doing so takes ample review and deadlines. We want to come away here with a quicker process to provide a quicker path back to rebuilding victim’s lives.

The PG&E process using the fire victims’ trust took—and is still taking—too much time. We are seven years removed from the Camp Fire, but victims have yet to be fully compensated There were many layers of pro-rata payments that have made it very hard for people to rebuild.

Based on what we learned with the PG&E case, we now know how to advocate for our clients to the fullest extent. The appeals process was daunting with the fire victims’ trust, and what they would allow or disallow wasn’t readily available at first. Now we understand how a claims process may work, their priorities in addressing claims, and additional claims that may not be apparent to most at the onset (potential rental income loss, etc.).

Mass tort attorneys should pay attention to how Edison reacts to lawsuits from the county and residents; what, if any, role bankruptcy will play; and whether the California Wildfire Fund will contribute.

As a society, we should work to mitigate and even prevent this type of devastation from happening again through better regulations and more effective avenues for relief when a wildfire, earthquake, tornado or other disaster does occur. Being prepared is the best action mass tort attorneys can take.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Brittnie Panetta is an attorney with Matthews & Associates, a personal injury firm. She has represented litigants who sued PG&E and is representing clients in the Eaton fire.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines