Victims of the recent Los Angeles wildfires, potentially the most expensive in U.S. history, are invoking a unique California legal doctrine that could compel Southern California Edison to pay billions in damages, even if the utility did nothing wrong.
Numerous lawsuits were filed this week by victims of the Eaton Fire, which erupted east of Los Angeles, against Southern California Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International (EIX). The lawsuits claim the fire was sparked by the company’s high-voltage transmission towers, which were allegedly impacted by extreme winds and low humidity.
While Edison has stated that no operational anomalies were detected on its transmission wires either in the 12 hours before the fire or up to an hour afterward, legal experts note that California’s “inverse condemnation” doctrine may hold the company financially accountable. This legal principle, traditionally applied to government entities, has been extended by California courts to include utility companies.
Edison’s CEO, Pedro Pizarro, defended the company’s practices, stating that no signs of electrical malfunctions, such as voltage drops or increased current, were observed. He also emphasized that the company adhered to state-approved protocols for wildfire mitigation. However, California’s inverse condemnation doctrine requires utilities to compensate for damages caused by their infrastructure—even without evidence of negligence.
Legal experts, including Daniel Farber, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, explain that under inverse condemnation, plaintiffs do not need to prove that Edison’s maintenance was deficient. If the transmission lines are found to be the primary cause of the fire, Edison could be held liable for the damages, which could total billions of dollars.
The fires, particularly the Palisades and Eaton Fires, have already destroyed more than 6,000 structures and led to at least 24 fatalities. The financial toll of the disaster is expected to reach tens of billions of dollars.
To safeguard against such financial liabilities, California lawmakers have created a wildfire insurance fund with access to $21 billion, aimed at ensuring Southern California Edison’s solvency. However, Edison’s exposure is capped at $3.9 billion through this fund. Despite this, the lawsuits brought by victims, many of whom are residents of Los Angeles, argue that the utility’s transmission lines were the likely source of the fire.
The plaintiffs, some represented by attorney Mikal Watts, are seeking damages for lost wages, rebuilding costs, and other expenses, which are expected to far exceed existing insurance coverage. These lawsuits are expected to take years to resolve.
“If Edison’s equipment is found to have substantially caused the Eaton Fire, the utility would be liable for substantial economic damages,” said Gerald Singleton, an attorney representing one of the plaintiffs. “If negligence can be proven, damages could also include compensation for personal injury and wrongful death.”
Edison has vowed to review the complaints as they are filed and remains committed to assisting the affected communities and restoring power.
Read more: