Wildfires Mass Tort Marketing Campaigns for Lawyers

A group of 10,000 survivors of the Eaton and Palisades wildfires has filed a petition seeking formal legal standing in the California Department of Insurance’s enforcement proceeding against State Farm General Insurance Company.

 
If granted, the unprecedented request would allow the nonprofit to conduct discovery, present survivor testimony and evidence, cross-examine witnesses, participate in settlement discussions and advocate directly for remedies affecting thousands of wildfire policyholders.

 
The organization, Every Fire Survivor’s Network (EFSN), is seeking the right to directly advocate for remedies that will help them rebuild and return home, after 18 months of what they said are documented patterns of claims-handling misconduct by State Farm.

 
“State Farm has insured over 20% of Eaton and Palisades fire survivors,” said Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, adding, “It is the biggest player in the market, and according to our data and according to Commissioner Ricardo Lara in his Zoom webinar with us, State Farm garners the most complaints of any insurer. When the largest player in the market systemically does not fulfill its contracts, that has a depressing effect on the entire market. So in that sense, State Farm’s misconduct in this recovery is holding back the entire Los Angeles recovery, and it puts every Californian at risk.”

 
The Department of Insurance’s enforcement proceeding follows a market conduct examination of State Farm’s handling of first-party claims arising from the January 2025 fires. According to the petition, the Department reviewed a random sample of 220 State Farm claims and found 398 alleged violations across 26 violation categories, including delays, failure to provide required notices, adjuster reassignment issues, underpayment, misrepresentations regarding policy terms, and claim file documentation failures.

 
If the petition to intervene is granted, the survivors’ group said it could establish a precedent for how wildfire survivors participate in regulatory proceedings and how insurers handle catastrophe claims across California for years to come.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in a claim brought by 60 homeowners who lost their homes in the 2025 Southern California wildfires. The homeowners allege that 16 insurance companies jointly conspired to cancel their fire insurance policies in the years leading up to the fires. The homeowners claim they were forced to obtain insurance from a state-run program that offers less protective coverage, resulting in much higher out-of-pocket expenses for rebuilding their homes.

 
The DOJ notes that the insurance carriers have argued that the homeowners’ claims should be dismissed on the basis of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, an exemption from antitrust liability under both federal and California antitrust laws that protects petitioning and advocacy directed at government agencies.

 
The department’s statement of interest argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should not apply to the insurers’ alleged group boycott of the homeowner policyholders, as the alleged boycott was separate and distinct — and caused separate and distinct harms — from any government petitioning activity by the insurers.

The statement adds that, “the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which limits certain federal antitrust claims regarding insurance conduct subject to state oversight, does not necessarily bar group boycott claims of the type alleged by homeowners in this case.”

A recent ruling in Los Angeles Superior Court will allow thousands of lawsuits filed by Palisades fire victims to proceed against the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and other agencies.

 
Judge Samantha Jessner denied requests for dismissals by the city and state, thus allowing property and business owners to pursue their claims that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power failed to supply enough water to fight the blaze.

 
The judge ruled that a California law gives victims a legal basis to move forward with allegations that a city reservoir drained for repairs left fire hydrants with inadequate water pressure and helped the fire rage out of control.

 
The plaintiffs allege that the government allowed hazardous conditions to exist, contributing to the Palisades fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,000 structures in Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu.

 
“The Court overruled the claims of immunity by the City and State which allows our case to move forward into the discovery phase,” said attorney Alexander Robertson, one of the lead attorneys representing fire victims. “The lies, gaslighting, and coverup by both the City and State will be further exposed through the discovery process.”

 
The fire victims’ lawsuits allege that local and state governments were negligent and should be held financially responsible for the damage caused by the Palisades fire, including claims government agencies failed to fully extinguish the smaller Lachman fire that burned in the Palisades highlands six days earlier, and failed to maintain an adequate water supply for firefighting.

Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, won the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by shareholders who accused the company of defrauding them before the January 2025 Los Angeles-area wildfires by assuring it had significantly reduced the risk of losses from such fires.

 
The shareholders claimed Edison misled them about the effectiveness of its efforts to mitigate wildfire risk, accusing the company of being unable to address ​extreme weather events and safely implement its Public Safety Power Shutoff program, ​measure to shut down power lines at times of high fire risks.

 
In dismissing the complaint, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright said
statements about the Public Safety Power Shutoff program were too vague for a reasonable investor to have relied on them or establish falsity. The court ruled that the company’s statements about risk reduction were protected by the “safe harbor” provision for forward-looking statements.

 
“If anything, the PSPS statements, read charitably for plaintiffs, ‌plainly ⁠indicate that PSPS was not perfect,” Wright wrote. “Without an assertion of perfect or complete loss-reduction through PSPS, it would be illogical for reasonable investor[s] to assume that SCE could use PSPS on all 38 of their transmission lines.”

The city of Los Angeles went to court against the state of California in an effort to spread liability for the Jan. 2025 Palisades wildfire that left 12 people dead and destroyed over 7,000 structures.

 
In a cross-complaint, the city asked that the state, its Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy pay part of any monetary damages that may result from lawsuits filed by over 3,500 fire victims.

 
The lawsuits allege that negligence on the part of local and state governments contributed to the damage caused by the Palisades fire. Plaintiffs also accuse theLA Department of Water and Power of failing to maintain an adequate water supply for firefighting.

 
The city, state, and other defendants have denied the claims in court, and have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuits for failing to meet the legal threshold required to hold government agencies liable for the cost of the fire.

Lawsuits were filed by Southern California Edison accusing Los Angeles County, local water agencies and Southern California Gas Company of failures that made the 2025 Eaton wildfire more deadly. 19 people died in the Jan. 2025 blaze.

 
SoCal Edison filed cross-complaints in Los Angeles Superior Court against Los Angeles County, Pasadena Water and Power and five other water agencies, as well as a separate court complaint against SoCalGas.

 
Among the claims by SoCal Edison is that Los Angeles County agencies failed to send timely evacuation warnings to residents in east and west Altadena. 18 of the 19 people who died lived in west Altadena.

 
It was also alleged that water agencies did not provide enough water as the fire spread, leaving firefighters with limited resources.

 
Furthermore, SoCal Edison claims SoCalGas did not begin widespread shutoffs until four days after the fire started, alleging the blaze was partially fueled by gas leaks and gas-fed fires.

 
SoCal Edison is itself the subject of nearly 1,000 lawsuits from fire victims, insurers and government entities. Federal prosecutors have alleged that the fire was ignited by faulty power infrastructure owned, maintained, and operated by Edison.

A new lawsuit has been filed over the Jan. 7 Palisades wildfire by a homeowner who says the blaze rendered their home uninhabitable.

 
The plaintiff, named only as Aurora Point LLC, accused the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles County, Mayor Karen Bass and unnamed others of negligence and other failures.

 
According to the complaint, the defendants allowed a small brush fire, the Lachman fire, to spread into a much larger wildfire due to inadequate firefighting resources, an empty water reservoir and ignored warnings about high winds.

 
Among the allegations are that command staff ordered fire crews to demobilize in spite of warnings from firefighters that the Lachman Fire site was still smoldering after it was declared contained. It is also alleged that despite high wind warnings, no patrols or thermal imaging checks were redeployed, allowing underground embers to reignite.

 
Causes of action cited in the complaint include negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, nuisance, premises liability, violations of state health and safety codes, and federal civil rights claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

A new court filing accuses Southern California Edison of intentionally delaying litigation and mediation over the Eaton wildfire in an effort to get more fire victims to take part in its voluntary payout program.

 
Lawyers with three firms representing the fire survivors made that assertion in a joint case management conference statement. They claim that Southern California Edison has repeatedly delayed trial dates as well as discussions to enter into a faster mediation process, “in order to force vulnerable fire victims into accepting deeply discounted settlements.”

 
In their filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers cite statements from Edison International Chief Executive Officer Pedro Pizarro that Edison’s equipment likely sparked the Eaton fire, as well as an agreement with an insurance company to pay them back for the fire losses.

 
“Despite these facts and public statements, Defendants continue to stand before this Court asserting that they cannot and will not participate in mediations because liability discovery is Incomplete,” the lawyers write.

 
Edison called the allegations baseless and said it has never entered into a mediation protocol this early in a wildfire litigation because the parties are still in the early stages of developing the factual record.

Southern California Edison announced details of its compensation program for victims of the Eaton wildfire in January, which killed 19 people and burned more than 14,000 acres of Los Angeles County.

 
The company called it a voluntary, comprehensive claims program designed to provide direct payments and fast resolutions to eligible individuals and businesses impacted by the fire.

 
Under the program, which is expected to begin payouts in early 2026, homeowners who lost single-family residences can receive $550–$750 per square foot, amounting to about $900,000 for a 1,500-square-foot home. Those who agree to settle directly with Edison, avoiding mediation or litigation, can get an additional $200,000, plus $100,000 for each adult and $50,000 for each child to cover pain and suffering. Claims could be processed within 60 days and paid within 30 days of acceptance.

 
Though it is aimed at expediting payments, victims may be able to recover more compensation through litigation, which many are expected to pursue.
A group representing thousands of people from Altadena and the surrounding areas expressed their objections to the Edison plan, saying that the maps Edison uses to determine eligibility exclude some impacted residents from the program. They add that the compensation offered falls short in various ways, including an incorrect assumption that residents will receive the full value of their property insurance policies.

 
The United States Justice Department has filed two lawsuits against Southern California Edison Co., alleging the company’s negligence caused the Eaton and Fairview fires.

The United States Justice Department filed two lawsuits against Southern California Edison Co., alleging the company’s negligence caused the Eaton and Fairview fires.

 
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced the legal action that seeks over $77 million in damages. He accused SoCal Edison of what he called a troubling pattern of negligence that led to the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of National Forest System lands. In the Eaton Fire lawsuit, Essayli alleges SoCal Edison negligently failed to properly maintain its power and transmission lines in the area where the fire ignited, and added that similar maintenance failures led to the Fairview fire.

 
It was reported that attorneys representing the dozens of plaintiffs in state court lawsuits over the Eaton fire said the federal lawsuits could bolster their own cases. Several other lawsuits have been filed against SoCal Edison, including by LA County and the city of Pasadena.

Victims of the LA wildfires are suing the California FAIR Plan, the state-backed insurer of last resort. They claim that FAIR did not adequately compensate them for smoke and toxic residue damage to their homes caused by the fires despite clear evidence of contamination.

The lawsuit, which involves over 100 plaintiffs, contends that the insurer
deliberately uses vague and potentially unlawful language to deny legitimate smoke damage claims, often without conducting adequate inspections or testing.

In June, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the FAIR Plan is violating state law by how it treats smoke damage claims and interprets “direct physical loss”. The judge said the plan’s smoke damage policy is illegal because it provides less coverage than what is required by California law.

The state’s Department of Insurance has declared parts of FAIR’s policy language unenforceable, calling on the insurer to revise its policies and handle smoke damage claims fairly. The department filed an Order to Show Cause against the FAIR Plan after consumer complaints showed a pattern of denying smoke damage claims based on an arbitrary FAIR Plan-defined requirement for “permanent physical damage.”

Victims of the Jan. 7 Palisades wildfire filed an amended complaint alleging that the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) should have been better prepared to fight the catastrophic blaze.

The case, Grigsby, et al. vs. City of Los Angeles, involves about 3,300 plaintiffs. They cite new information showing that LADWP neglected to inspect a 117-million-gallon reservoir in the Pacific Palisades between 2021 and 2023. As a result, the city had to drain the reservoir in 2024 due to a tear in its cover.

With the reservoir still empty, the lawsuit states that firefighters had to obtain water from outside the fire zone to combat the wildfire and were delayed by six hours, by which time the fire covered nearly 1,500 acres in the area. The attorney representing the plaintiffs alleged that LADWP attempted to revise its inspection policy retroactively, from once per year to once per three years. The lawsuit accuses LADWP, the city of Los Angeles, and the state of California of negligent and wrongful conduct.

A group of California homeowners who lost their homes in the Los Angeles wildfires filed suit against two of the nation’s largest homeowner’s insurance companies, United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and the American Automobile Association (AAA). The homeowners allege they were underinsured and that the payouts offered by the companies fall far short of fairly compensating them for the losses they have suffered.

The lawsuits, filed in California Superior Court, allege widespread fraud, negligence, and bad faith. They accused the companies of “systematically underinsuring thousands of homeowners despite years of advertising their expertise in estimating rebuilding costs and assuring policyholders they would be fully protected in the event of a total loss.”

Two lawsuits were filed in May against Southern California Edison in Los Angeles County Superior Court. One, a proposed class-action suit, was filed by Amber Diaz on behalf of her minor child. It alleges that negligence on the part of SoCal Edison sparked the Eaton fire and exposed residents to hazardous toxins such as lead and asbestos. The plaintiff claims fallout from the fire, smoke and ash contaminated homes with neurotoxic materials.

SoCal Edison is accused of negligence, trespass, and public and private nuisance, and seeks punitive damages, medical monitoring costs, and property remediation. The lawsuit alleges the utility has a history of safety failures and cites the risks, particularly to children, of what it calls an environmental catastrophe.

The second lawsuit against SoCal Edison alleges that children living near the Eaton Fire were exposed to dangerous levels of lead and asbestos released by smoke from the blaze. The complaint said the utility’s equipment may have caused the wildfire that spread toxic debris in Altadena, Pasadena, and South Pasadena.  The lawsuit cites independent environmental tests indicating significant contamination in local homes. Plaintiffs seek compensation for ongoing medical monitoring of affected children.

Ten victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed April 10 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against California’s FAIR Plan, the state-backed insurer of last resort.   It is reported to be the first mass tort case against the plan in the aftermath of the January wildfires.

The lawsuit accuses the plan of systematically denying and underpaying smoke damage claims related to the fires. The suit alleges homes were rendered uninhabitable by invisible toxic chemical residue from heavy smoke, including hazardous substances such as lead and arsenic.

The FAIR Plan is accused of insurance bad faith and breach of contract through its refusal to properly investigate and pay for the cleanups as required by state law.  The lawsuit targets not only the FAIR Plan, but also major insurers who fund the plan, including Nationwide, State Farm and, Allstate.

Los Angeles County is suing Edison over the Eaton Fire, as it aims to recover hundreds of millions spent on emergency response and repairs. Pasadena and Sierra Madre have filed similar suits. While Edison admits its transmission line may have played a role, it insists it acted responsibly. Still, California law allows utilities to be held liable for wildfire damage even if they weren’t negligent.

A lawsuit filed late March accuses the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power of negligence in the Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of properties. Plaintiffs allege LADWP failed to maintain power lines and left key water reservoirs empty, worsening the fire’s impact. They claim LADWP initially denied, then admitted, that live wires from a broken pole sparked the blaze. The suit seeks damages for property loss, injuries, and economic harm.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the company’s negligence sparked the Eaton Fire. Video evidence appears to show sparks flying from aging power lines and poorly maintained equipment just before the fire ignited. Plaintiffs include homeowners, business owners, and individuals who suffered severe injuries or lost loved ones.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has secured a $10 million legal defense agreement with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP to fight lawsuits stemming from the Palisades Fire. The firm has a history of defending major utilities in wildfire cases, including PG&E and Hawaiian Electric.

On February 21, tenant advocates filed a lawsuit against six Los Angeles landlords for illegally raising rents after two of California’s most destructive wildfires. The lawsuit argues that rent hikes of up to 50% violated California’s emergency pricing laws, which cap increases at 10% during a state-declared emergency.

By the end of the month, evidence was uncovered, by a private investigator, of electrical arcing on an inactive transmission tower, minutes before SCE reported a fault on a distant power line. This discovery puts the fire’s origins and the SCE’s role in the disaster under scrutiny.

Years of litigation are anticipated as at least 31 wildfires have devastated Los Angeles and surrounding regions in the first week of January. Many factors, including long-standing drought, low humidity, and the hurricane-like Santa Ana winds, are believed to have escalated the fires. The Palisdades Fire and the Eaton Fire have been the most devastating, consuming nearly 24,000 and 14,000 acres, respectively. At least 27 people have died, and entire neighborhoods, schools, and businesses have been burnt down, displacing whole communities. According to J.P. Morgan analysts, the wildfires, still ongoing at this time of writing, is likely to result in more than $20 billion in insured losses alone.

Recent findings from retired arson investigators indicate transmission tower markings consistent with electrical arcing at the scene, challenging earlier claims that the fire was caused by homeless encampments or fireworks.

At the time of this writing, a judge has directed Edison International to disclose circuit data from the Eaton Fire’s origin and preserve equipment from the area. The fire, which killed 17, has sparked lawsuits alleging negligence, with residents blaming inadequate maintenance and the decision to maintain power during extreme winds.

Wyoming’s Joint Minerals Committee reviewed a proposed bill offering liability protection to public utilities in wildfire-related lawsuits. The measure required utilities to develop wildfire mitigation plans to qualify for protection, aiming to lower litigation and insurance costs. While utility companies backed the bill, the committee set it aside, requesting revisions before revisiting the proposal in the next legislative session.

Wildfire litigation saw major developments:

A $4 billion global settlement resolved claims tied to the 2023 Maui wildfires. A Maui judge mandated insurance companies disclose wildfire-related claims by December 2, increasing transparency.

In Oregon, six wineries sued PacifiCorp for over $4 million, alleging its negligence during the 2020 Labor Day fires caused severe vineyard damage.

Meanwhile, Wyoming’s governor sought emergency funding to address costs from the state’s worst fire season in decades, which burned 850,000 acres and depleted the fire control budget.

October 31, 2024

The Hawaii Attorney General’s office announced the conclusion of its Lahaina wildfire investigation, deciding against criminal charges. The report exposed major lapses in communication and preparedness that obstructed evacuation efforts. It also praised Maui’s first responders for their bravery during the disaster. A third phase of the inquiry will explore strategies to prevent similar tragedies moving forward.