This page is about negligence lawsuits against Southern California Edison and other defendants brought by victims of the LA fires. Our lawyers are actively accepting new cases on behalf of anyone who suffered personal injury, death or major property loss as a result of the LA fires in 2025.
If you believe you may have a claim, call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation online.
Latest LA Fire Litigation News and Updates
February 18, 2025 – LADWP Spending Big Money on Lawyers
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has retained Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP under a $10 million, three-year agreement to defend against lawsuits related to the Palisades Fire. Munger Tolles is no stranger to wildfire litigation. The law firm defended Hawaiian Electric in the 2023 Maui fire and PG&E in past California wildfires.
February 13, 2025 – Long History of California Wildfires Lawsuits
It is helpful to remember that the LA wildfires are not an isolated event but part of a long history of wildfire litigation in California. Over the past two decades, utility companies, government agencies, and insurers have faced extensive legal scrutiny for their roles in some of the most destructive wildfires in the state’s history. Because of this, there is already a well-established legal framework for determining liability and calculating settlement amounts in wildfire lawsuits.
Prior cases, such as the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to a $13.5 billion settlement with PG&E, and the 2023 Maui wildfires, which resulted in a $4.09 billion payout from Hawaiian Electric, provide a roadmap for how these cases unfold. The legal system has developed clear methodologies for assessing damages, including property loss, personal injury, business interruption, and wrongful death.
For victims of the LA wildfires, this means that the process of seeking settlement compensation is not starting from scratch. Courts and attorneys have a precedent for evaluating the full extent of damages. While every case is unique, the patterns established by past wildfire lawsuits will play a critical role in shaping settlement negotiations and trial outcomes in the ongoing LA fire litigation.
February 10, 2025 – 40 Lawsuits Filed Against SoCal Edison
Over 40 separate lawsuits have already been filed against Southern California Edison alleging that the utility company’s negligence caused the Eaton wildfire. A number of videos have surfaced which appear to show concrete proof that the Eaton fire was ignited by sparks coming from poorly maintained power lines and equipment owned by SoCal Edison. The lawsuits are being filed on behalf of home and business owners who suffered financial harm and also by individuals who lost family members or were seriously injured in the fires.
February 1, 2025 – The Eaton and Palisades Fires Are Finally Out
Twenty-four days late, these fires are extinguished.
January 31, 2025 – Inverse Condemnation
You will be hearing a lot about California’s unique legal doctrine of inverse condemnation in these wildfire lawsuits. This law allows property owners to hold utilities liable for wildfire damages without the need to prove negligence.
The inverse condemnation claim against the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power (LADWP) will see to get property owners compensation because government actions or infrastructure contribute to property damage. The claim, and it is not hard to make, is that the city’s mismanagement of its water supply system significantly exacerbated the fire’s impact, leading to the destruction of homes and properties.
The Santa Ynez Reservoir, a critical component of the area’s water infrastructure, was taken out of service in February 2024 for maintenance and remained offline during the fire… for no real good reason. The result was brave firefighters with insufficient water pressure and supply to combat the rapidly spreading flames. We contend that the city’s failure to maintain and operate essential water infrastructure effectively transformed private properties into de facto public firebreaks, thereby constituting a taking under inverse condemnation principles. By pursuing this legal avenue, we aim to hold the city accountable for its role in the disaster and secure just compensation for our clients’ substantial losses.
January 30, 2025 – Eaton Fire Photos Point to SoCal Edison
New photos show exposed wire at the base of a Southern California Edison tower. This tracks with allegations that SCE is responsible for the Eaton Fire in Los Angeles. According to experts involved in the case, the exposed grounding wire may have acted like a wick, igniting nearby vegetation during electrical arcing at the tower.
The utility stated that a preliminary review of its transmission data showed no faults in the lines until more than an hour after the reported start time of the fire. However, these newly surfaced images come after surveillance footage—previously reported by the New York Times—showed short arcs near an SCE tower.
January 28, 2025 – New Court Order
A California judge ordered Southern California Edison to keep power off for at least 21 days on five lines near Altadena, following the deadly Eaton Fire, though no determination of fault has been made. Regulatory filings revealed an electrical fault at 6:11 p.m.—the exact time the fire ignited—supported by video evidence of a powerful electric arc.
In a hearing, the parties agreed to de-energize the lines unless California’s grid operator deems power restoration necessary, with a 48-hour notice for plaintiffs. Edison maintains that the fire’s cause is unknown and argues for restoring power to 2,000 Altadena homes. Meanwhile, the utility faces over 20 lawsuits related to the fire, which killed at least 17 people and destroyed 9,000 structures.
The judge has ordered Edison to preserve infrastructure near the fire’s origin and produce data by January 24, amid allegations from plaintiffs’ attorneys that Edison may be attempting to destroy evidence or conceal findings through confidentiality claims. The court remains cautious about making discovery records public at this stage.
January 27, 2025 – SoCal Edison Agrees to Shut Off Power to Lines
SoCal Edison has now agreed to not send power or “re-energize” its power lines leading directly into the site of the Eaton Fire which has been devastating Los Angeles County for 3 weeks. Lawyers representing victims of the LA wildfires have obtained videos that appear to show sparks being committed from SoCal Edison’s electrical lines and equipment just hours before the Eaton Fire began. The location of the sparks in the videos were very close to the area where the fire began, making this compelling evidence that SoCal Edison’s equipment caused the fire.
January 25, 2025 – Source of Eaton Fire Keeps Coming Back to Edison
Residents near the tower claim to have witnessed large flames at the site, supporting the theory that Edison’s equipment sparked the fire. Edison officials, however, maintain that initial inspections showed no signs of arcing or anomalies and emphasized the need for a full investigation before drawing conclusions. The company confirmed sharing the video with investigators and continues to dispute claims that their equipment caused the fire.
January 24, 2025 – Chubb
Chubb is expected to cover a significant portion of the losses from the Los Angeles fires. While no insurance company is easy to deal with, Chubb has a reputation as one of the better players in an industry notorious for delaying, denying, and underpaying claims.
Plaintiffs making fire claims against Chubb will likely have an easier time than other victims. Chubb is known for honoring high-value policies and handling claims with more humanity than many of its peers.
January 23, 2025 – $20 Billion in Insured Losses
The ongoing wildfires in Los Angeles are expected to result in insured losses exceeding $20 billion, according to J.P. Morgan analysts.
This would surpass the $12 billion incurred during California’s devastating 2018 fires. Analysts note that primary homeowner carriers, particularly those serving high-net-worth clients like Chubb, will bear the brunt of the losses, with commercial and auto insurers also facing significant exposure.
January 22, 2025 – Edison Ordered to Produce Data
Edison International’s Southern California utility has been ordered by Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury to produce data from circuits near the origin of the deadly Eaton fire, which killed at least 17 people, and preserve all equipment within a one-square-mile area of the fire’s origin. Residents blame the utility for the fire, citing maintenance issues and the decision to keep power running during a historic windstorm.
The order follows accusations by attorneys for a fire victim that the utility attempted to destroy relevant evidence, a claim Edison disputes, arguing that the broad preservation requests would hinder service restoration efforts.
Most lawsuits against Edison, alleging negligence, have been designated as complex and assigned to California Superior Court, overseen by Judge Samantha P. Jessner.
January 21, 2025 – Years of Litigation Is Coming
For the victims of these fires—families who lost their homes, businesses forced to shutter, and individuals injured or killed—the legal process can feel painfully slow. Wildfire litigation often spans years, as the Thomas Fire case, which took seven years to reach trial, clearly illustrates. Oour focus is on cutting through the delay tactics and securing fair settlement compensation for our clients, whether it’s for injuries, lost property, income, or the emotional toll of fleeing a deadly inferno.
January 20, 2025 – Cause of Fire
A recent town hall revealed findings from retired arson investigators indicating that transmission tower markings consistent with electrical arcing were present at the scene, contradicting initial speculation about alternative fire causes such as homeless encampments or fireworks.
The 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires: A Catastrophic Start to the Year
Beginning in the first week of January 2025, Los Angeles and its surrounding regions have faced an unparalleled crisis as a series of 31 wildfires erupted across the area. These fires have devastated communities, fueled by a perfect storm of conditions: extreme drought, critically low humidity, and the relentless power of Santa Ana winds reaching hurricane-like speeds of up to 100 mph. The scale of destruction is harrowing, with lives lost, homes reduced to ash, and communities uprooted.
California’s wildfires, particularly those near Los Angeles, have left communities devastated, prompting waves of litigation to seek accountability. The recent blazes, including the Palisades, Eaton, and other catastrophic fires, have given rise to lawsuits targeting utility companies like Southern California Edison (SCE), as well as other parties whose negligence may have contributed to these tragedies. These California wildfire lawsuits are driven by the need to recover for lost homes, scorched businesses, and personal injuries while demanding reforms to prevent future disasters.
The legal claims are built on a clear pattern of preventable failures. Utility companies often cite environmental conditions, but their infrastructure and maintenance practices frequently tell another story. Victims are left not only to rebuild their lives but also to navigate the complexities of legal battles with corporations adept at deflecting blame.
These LA fire lawsuits underscore the critical role that experienced injury law firms play in holding responsible parties accountable. Drawing on precedent from similar cases, such as the lawsuits that arose from the Palisades Fire, the strategies and arguments are already taking shape. Ultimately, these lawsuits are not just about monetary compensation—they are about delivering justice and pushing for systemic changes that could save lives in the future.
The Palisades Fire
The Palisades Fire, centered in the Pacific Palisades, has emerged as one of the most devastating blazes in the region. To date, it has scorched nearly 24,000 acres of land, forcing widespread evacuations and causing immense property damage. Entire neighborhoods have been displaced, with families left to wonder if they will have anything to return to once the flames subside.
The Eaton Fire
Another catastrophic blaze, the Eaton Fire in Altadena, has consumed approximately 14,000 acres. Its path of destruction has left a trail of extensive property loss and mandatory evacuations as the fire rapidly spread through the community. The toll on residents has been immense, both emotionally and physically, as they grapple with the sudden upheaval of their lives. The fires our out now but the pain is still being felt by victims.
A Grim Toll and Ongoing Danger
The the confirmed death toll from these wildfires stands at 29. The fires have displaced over 200,000 people, forcing them to flee their homes with little more than the essentials they could carry. More than 14,000 structures have been destroyed, including homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure, making these fires some of the most destructive in California’s history.
Long California Wildfire Lawsuit History
California wildfires have led to some of the largest lawsuits and settlements in U.S. history, with billions of dollars paid out to victims who lost their homes, businesses, and loved ones. The 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, including the Eaton Fire and Palisades Fire, have triggered a surge in lawsuits against Southern California Edison and other entities, alleging negligence, failure to de-energize power lines, and inadequate fire prevention measures.
Similar to past California wildfire lawsuits, such as PG&E’s $13.5 billion settlement for the Camp Fire, legal claims against SCE are expected to focus on inverse condemnation, utility negligence, and municipal liability for infrastructure failures. Many victims are filing lawsuits not just for property damage, but also for personal injury, wrongful death, insurance disputes, and environmental hazards caused by wildfire smoke and toxic exposure.
Beyond utility liability, lawsuits arising from the LA fires will also scrutinize government entities and insurance companies. The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will also face fire negligence lawsuits for mismanagement of water resources, particularly, as we discuss more below, reports that the Santa Ynez Reservoir was offline during the fires, leaving firefighters with inadequate water pressure. Additionally, insurance companies are expected to face lawsuits for bad faith insurance practices, including denied or undervalued claims, an issue that has plagued victims in past California wildfires lawsuits.
This timeline of major California wildfire lawsuits highlights landmark settlements and legal battles that have shaped wildfire litigation in California—offering insight into what victims of the LA wildfires lawsuit may expect. Whether you’re pursuing an SCE lawsuit, an Eaton Fire class action lawsuit, or a Palisades Fire lawsuit, understanding the history of these cases will be a roadmap lawyrs will use in setting expectations for potential wildfire settlement payouts and legal strategies moving forward.
Early Wildfires & Legal Responses (Pre-2000s)
1889 – The Great Santiago Canyon Fire
The largest wildfire in Orange County history, burning 300,000 acres.
Occurred long before modern firefighting technology, devastating farmland.
1933 – The Griffith Park Fire (Los Angeles)
One of L.A.’s deadliest fires, killing 29 workers clearing brush.
Sparked a shift in fire safety policies for city parks.
1961 – The Bel Air Fire
Burned 6,000 acres in Los Angeles, destroying 484 homes in upscale neighborhoods.
Led to new building codes banning wood-shingle roofs in fire-prone areas.
1991 – Oakland Hills Firestorm
One of California’s first major urban-interface wildfires, destroying 2,900 structures.
Led to new state fire zone mapping and stricter insurance regulations.
2000s: Increased Wildfire Frequency & Legal Challenges
2003 – The Cedar Fire (San Diego)
273,000 acres burned, the largest single wildfire in CA history at the time.
Killed 15 people and destroyed 2,800 structures.
Led to insurance battles over coverage for wildland-urban interface homes.
2007 – Malibu Canyon & Corral Fires
Two major Los Angeles-area wildfires, destroying 53 homes and damaging 37 more.
Lawsuits against illegal campfires and landowners for negligence.
2010s: Utility-Caused Wildfires & Landmark Lawsuits
2017 – The Thomas Fire (Ventura & Los Angeles)
Burned 280,000 acres, destroying 1,000+ structures.
Southern California Edison faced lawsuits over power line failures.
2024 Settlement: SoCal Edison paid $80 million for damages.
2018 – The Woolsey Fire (Los Angeles & Ventura)
Burned 97,000 acres, destroying 1,600 structures.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) admitted fault, leading to $13.5 billion in settlements.
Kanye West and Kim Kardashian hired private firefighters, sparking debate over wealth-based fire protection.
2025: L.A. Fire Lawsuits Against Southern California Edison
January 7, 2025 – The Eaton & Palisades Fires Begin
Fire ignited in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, killing 17 people.
Over 9,000 structures destroyed, including historic estates in L.A.
January 23, 2025 – $20 Billion in Insured Losses
J.P. Morgan analysts project $20 billion in claims from the L.A. wildfires.
Chubb Insurance expected to cover a significant portion.
January 24, 2025 – Inverse Condemnation Lawsuit
Lawyers file inverse condemnation claims against City of Los Angeles.
Allegations that water system failures (Santa Ynez Reservoir) worsened fire damage.
February 10, 2025 – 40 Lawsuits Filed Against SoCal Edison
Lawsuits claim Edison’s aging equipment sparked the Eaton Fire.
Homeowners and victims sue for wrongful death and property loss.
Three Main Types of Claims
The 2025 LA wildfires have left thousands grappling with personal injury, property destruction, and devastating loss of life. For many victims, one of the first steps toward recovery involves filing insurance claims that hopefully the insurance companies will pay promptly.
Beyond insurance, our lawyers intend to hold government, utility, and commercial entities accountable when their negligence contributes to disasters like the LA wildfires. Investigations into the cause of these fires may reveal the role of Southern California Edison or other entities, and we are committed to pursuing justice on behalf of victims. Should a responsible party be identified, we will aggressively seek compensation for your losses, including emotional distress, evacuation costs, and environmental harm.
Lawsuits Against Southern California Edison (Eaton)
Victims of recent LA wildfires, including the devastating Eaton Fire, may have grounds to file civil lawsuits against Southern California Edison (SCE) and seek financial compensation for their damages. Initial lawsuits, including claims targeting SCE, have already been filed, focusing on the utility company’s alleged role in causing the catastrophic fire.
The LA wildfire lawsuits claim that SCE, one of California’s largest utility providers, negligently caused the Eaton Fire, which erupted in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County. Beginning on January 7, 2025, the fire spread across over 14,000 acres, destroyed more than 7,000 structures, displaced thousands of residents, and tragically resulted in at least 24 deaths.
According to these lawsuits, SCE’s electrical equipment was the likely ignition source. Plaintiffs assert that the utility failed to properly maintain its equipment and neglected to de-energize power lines despite red flag warnings issued by the National Weather Service days before the fire. These warnings highlighted high winds and dry conditions—factors that have historically exacerbated California wildfire risks. Instead of taking proactive measures, SCE allegedly kept several power lines active, ignoring heightened wildfire danger.
The fire’s origin has been traced to Eaton Canyon in Altadena, where witnesses reported sparks or flames near SCE electrical towers. Adding to the case against the utility, video evidence and data from monitoring systems like Whisker Labs recorded unusual electrical activity—such as fault signals—at the time and place where the fire ignited. Plaintiffs argue this supports claims that equipment malfunctions or downed power lines contributed directly to the blaze.
Southern California Edison has denied responsibility, asserting that inspections and records show no anomalies or failures in the area prior to the fire. The utility claims to have de-energized some power lines before the blaze and has suggested that other factors, such as human activity or unrelated natural events, may have caused the fire. However, LA fire lawsuits argue that SCE has a track record of similar incidents and that its fire prevention efforts, including vegetation management and infrastructure inspections, have consistently fallen short.
So the the Eaton Fire lawsuits are based on negligence and include claims for punitive damages. Plaintiffs allege that Edison failed to de-energize its power lines despite known wildfire risks from Santa Ana winds, which led to the ignition of the Eaton Fire. Unlike municipal utilities, private companies like Edison can be sued for failing to prevent wildfires, making these claims more straightforward. The inclusion of punitive damages—a legal remedy intended to punish defendants for reckless or egregious conduct—could significantly push Eaton Fire Settlement payouts higher because SCE will rightly fear a jury hitting it with economic damages.
This litigation marks another chapter in the growing number of California wildfire lawsuits, where residents and businesses seek justice and accountability for preventable disasters.
Inverse Condemnation Claims
The lawsuits also invoke California’s inverse condemnation doctrine, a legal principle that holds utility companies strictly liable for wildfire damages caused by their equipment, regardless of negligence. This doctrine has been a point of contention in recent years, as utilities argue it unfairly burdens them with financial liabilities that they claim make wildfire prevention even more difficult. Under this doctrine, SCE could be required to compensate victims for property damage, personal injury, and other losses, even if no negligence is proven.
Inverse condemnation is also when a government action effectively takes or damages private property for public use without formally exercising eminent domain. In such cases, property owners can seek compensation, arguing that the government’s action resulted in a de facto taking.
Investigations into the Eaton Fire and Palisades Fire are ongoing, led by state and federal agencies, including CAL FIRE and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). These investigations aim to determine the precise ignition source and contributing factors. Findings from these probes are expected to play a critical role in the lawsuits, potentially influencing settlement negotiations or trial outcomes.
The scope of the lawsuits extends beyond direct damages. Plaintiffs seek compensation not only for tangible losses like homes and businesses but also for emotional distress, evacuation costs, and long-term environmental impacts. The lawsuits could also lead to broader discussions about SCE’s corporate responsibility, fire prevention strategies, and the balance between energy infrastructure reliability and wildfire safety in California’s increasingly fire-prone landscape.
Palisades Fire and Inadequate Water Supply – How That Legal Argument Works
Plaintiffs argue that the city’s failure to maintain an adequate water supply for firefighting significantly contributed to the destruction of homes and businesses.
More specifically, claims will drill down on a 117-million-gallon water reservoir that was inexplicably left out of service for nearly a year, limiting the ability of firefighters to contain the blaze.
The hurdle seen need to get past is California Government Code §850, which shields municipalities from liability for failing to provide fire protection services. Unlike in Hawaii, where victims of the 2023 Maui wildfire sued the local government for gross negligence, California law does not provide such an exception. This makes municipal liability harder to establish. But there is a path. We will build powerful arguments around infrastructure failures (rather than fire response deficiencies).
Insurance Disputes and Bad Faith Claims in LA Wildfire Lawsuits
After a devastating wildfire, many victims assume that homeowners’ insurance will cover the full extent of their property damage and financial losses. Unfortunately, insurance disputes are common in Los Angeles wildfire lawsuits, leaving many homeowners and business owners without the funds they need to rebuild. Bad faith insurance claims arise when insurers wrongfully delay, deny, or underpay valid claims, forcing policyholders into long battles for compensation. Many victims of the Eaton Fire lawsuit, Palisades Fire lawsuit, and other LA wildfire lawsuits are already reporting significant issues with their insurance providers. This is not surprising. We have seen this pattern play out in nearly every major California wildfire lawsuit.
One of the most frequent issues wildfire victims face is claim denial. Insurance companies often reject claims by citing exclusions for “acts of God,” arguing that wildfires in high-risk zones are not covered. Others may attempt to minimize wildfire compensation claims by offering lowball settlements, leaving homeowners with far less than what they need to repair or replace their lost property. They do this for a reason. Some people are left between taking less or getting an advance on their settlement and it makes sense for enough people to take less than endure the awful costs that come with settlement advances. This make the insurance companies a fortune. Delays in payment are another common problem, as insurers use stalling tactics that make it difficult for families to recover and rebuild. Even worse, some policyholders discover that their insurance coverage lapsed just before the fire due to non-renewals, a growing issue as insurers reduce their exposure to California wildfire lawsuits.
We have seen this story before. We expect several major insurance companies have come under scrutiny for bad faith insurance practices in past wildfire cases, and the same trends are emerging in LA fire lawsuits. Chubb, known for insuring high-value properties, has a history of being pretty good insurance company for victims. But that seems to be changing. There have been complaints about Chubb with delays and partial claim denials in recent wildfires.
State Farm has significantly cut back on its wildfire coverage in California, leaving many homeowners underinsured. Allstate and Farmers Insurance have also been accused of wrongful denials and payment disputes, particularly after previous California wildfire litigation. Given these patterns, it is likely we will have a ton of lawsuits against insurance companies.
California law requires insurance companies to act in good faith when handling claims. So if your insurer is wrongfully denying or delaying your payout, you may have grounds to file a bad faith insurance lawsuit. These claims can force insurers to pay the full value of your losses, along with potential additional damages for acting in bad faith. If you believe your insurance company is not paying what you are owed, it is critical to take action. Start by documenting all communications and claim paperwork, obtaining an independent assessment of your property damage, and consulting an attorney experienced in wildfire insurance disputes.
For those struggling with insurance disputes after the LA wildfires, legal action may be the only way to secure the compensation necessary to rebuild. If your insurer is refusing to honor your policy, our legal team help you.
Prior California Wildfire Lawsuits Against PG&E
This is not the first time a California utility company has found itself at the center of mass tort litigation related to devastating wildfires. The current lawsuits against Southern California Edison bear striking similarities to those filed against Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in the aftermath of the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California. These legal actions highlight the systemic challenges facing utility companies in managing infrastructure risks in fire-prone regions.
The 2018 Camp Fire was a catastrophic event that resulted in 85 fatalities and billions of dollars in property damage, making it one of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California history. PG&E faced widespread accusations of gross negligence, with allegations that the company failed to adequately maintain and modernize its aging power delivery system. This failure allegedly led to sparking and ignition during high-wind conditions, ultimately causing the devastating fire. PG&E’s liability culminated in massive settlement payouts and the company filing for bankruptcy, a stark reminder of the financial repercussions of utility-related wildfire negligence.
The potential liability SCE faces in connection with the Eaton Fire is already reflected in financial markets. Over the past week, SCE’s stock price has suffered significant declines as investors react to the unfolding litigation and potential liabilities. Multiple financial firms have downgraded their ratings for SCE, citing concerns over the utility’s exposure to substantial legal and financial risks. The parallels between the lawsuits against PG&E and SCE suggest that California utilities will continue to grapple with escalating costs, reputational damage, and risk of huge settlement payouts and verdicts in the face of this LA wildfire litigation.
Maui Wildfires
The current LA wildfire lawsuits are also nearly identical to lawsuits brought against Hawaiian Electric following the wildfires that devastated the island of Maui in August 2023. Hawaii Electric, the primary electric utility company in Hawaii, was named as a defendant in several class action lawsuits as well as many individual lawsuits alleging injury, death and property destruction.
The allegations against Hawaiian Electric (“HE”) in those lawsuits were basically the same as those being made against SCE in the LA wildfire lawsuits. HE was accused of negligence for failing to having a power shutoff plan in place for fire prevention. The lawsuits claimed that a power shutoff plan would have prevented downed power lines from igniting fires when they fell.
The HE lawsuits also asserted claims of inverse condemnation. This legal claim is somewhat similar to eminent domain and it allows victims of wildfires to hold utility companies liable without necessarily proving negligence.
California Wildfire Lawsuit FAQs
Who can file a California wildfire lawsuit?If you suffered losses due to a wildfire in Los Angeles or anywhere in California, you may qualify to file a California wildfire lawsuit—even if you have already received an insurance payout. Qualification typically depends on several factors, including whether you lost your home, personal property, business, or suffered injuries due to the fire. Many LA fire lawsuits also target utility companies, such as SCE, for negligence in maintaining power lines that allegedly sparked some of these devastating fires.
Even if you’re unsure whether your fire was caused by a utility company, it’s worth exploring your legal options. Some lawsuits are seeking compensation for lost property value, emotional distress, wrongful death, and business interruptions, in addition to direct fire damage. If you were forced to evacuate, lost irreplaceable personal belongings, or are now facing financial hardship due to the fire’s impact, you may have a valid claim.
Our wildfire lawyers expect many of these claims to move forward, especially as new evidence emerges about corporate negligence, faulty equipment, and inadequate fire prevention measures. The best way to find out if you qualify is to speak with an attorney who can assess your situation and determine whether you have a strong case. Time limits apply, so it’s important to act quickly before your legal rights expire.
Victims may recover damages for:
– Property damage (homes, businesses, land)
– Evacuation and relocation costs
– Medical expenses for injuries or smoke inhalation
– Loss of income due to fire-related disruptions
– Emotional distress and suffering
– Wrongful death compensation for families of victims
Potential Settlement Value of LA Wildfire Lawsuits
It is obviously very early to estimate the potential settlement value of the LA wildfire lawsuits with any degree of certainty. It is early. This tragedy is still unfolding. But our lawyers can give a very speculative estimate based on settlements in other wildfire lawsuits against utilities. Historical settlement outcomes in similar cases provide a foundation for speculative estimates (although the unique circumstances of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires suggest that any potential settlement payouts could far exceed previous benchmarks).
In 2024, Hawaiian Electric and other defendants reached a $4.09 billion settlement fund to compensate victims of the devastating 2023 Maui wildfires. Similarly, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) paid roughly twice that amount—approximately $8 billion—for claims related to the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, which was one of the most destructive wildfires in U.S. history at the time. These cases demonstrate the significant financial liability utilities face when their equipment is found to have contributed to wildfire ignition.
Of course this is in Hawaii. This is LA. These wildfires in 2025 have caused devastation on a far greater scale, with over 14,000 structures destroyed, 27 confirmed fatalities, and over 200,000 residents displaced. This unprecedented level of destruction suggests that the settlement compensation payout for these lawsuits will dwarf previous wildfire cases. If liability claims against Southern California Edison (SCE) are substantiated, settlement amounts could easily surpass $10 billion, possibly making this the largest utility wildfire settlement in U.S. history.
Based on these prior examples, we can reasonably predict that any settlement payout in the LA wildfires lawsuits will be significantly bigger simply because the scale of damage and devastation is much greater in the LA wildfires. Assuming the liability claims against SCE hold up, we could easily see a settlement compensation payout of $10 billion or more.
The specific settlement payouts each individual plaintiff might receive will depend heavily on the nature and extent of their damages. Settlement compensation will, almost certainly, be calculated based largely on these three factors:
- Property Loss: Plaintiffs who lost homes, businesses, or other property may receive compensation proportional to the appraised value of their losses.
- Personal Injury or Wrongful Death: Victims who suffered injuries or lost loved ones may receive higher settlement amounts, reflecting both economic damages (e.g., medical expenses, lost income) and non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering, emotional distress).
- Evacuation Costs and Disruption: Compensation may also be available for the financial burden of temporary housing, lost wages, and other expenses incurred during prolonged evacuations.
Given the variability in damages, per-person settlement payouts could range widely—from tens of thousands of dollars for minor property damage claims to millions of dollars for families affected by wrongful deaths or total property destruction.
How Would an LA Wildfire Settlement Work?
If you’ve lost your home, suffered injuries, or been forced to evacuate because of the Los Angeles wildfires, you’re probably wondering what comes next. How do you get the compensation you deserve? What kind of settlement can you expect?
In large-scale fire litigation, settlements are often structured using a points-based system, where different factors determine how much each claimant receives. The biggest drivers of settlement value are total property loss, personal injuries, evacuation-related expenses, emotional trauma, and long-term health impacts.
In previous cases, like the PG&E wildfire settlements, total destruction of a home with documented rebuild costs and lost personal property often resulted in six- and seven-figure payouts. Those with severe injuries or burns sometimes received even more, while homeowners with only partial losses or those who experienced evacuation expenses but no direct fire damage saw lower compensation.
Losses Insurance Does Not Pay
Another key factor in these cases is insurance offsets. You can still get a settlement even if you have insurance and you have already been paid out part of your damages. Yes, that amount could be deducted from your settlement check. But there are more damages than those that are insured. In past fire settlements, attorneys have pushed for funds to account for underinsurance gaps, since many victims find out too late that their policy limits do not come close to covering their actual losses.
Rarely One-Size-Fits-All Settlements
Some cases settle through global settlements, where all claims are resolved in one agreement, while others go through individualized settlement negotiations. In cases like the Thomas Fire and Woolsey Fire settlements, claimants with strong evidence—such as photos, videos, and expert reports linking the fire’s cause to utility negligence—were often prioritized for higher payouts. That’s why it’s critical to gather as much documentation as possible, whether it’s proof of property loss, medical records, or footage of fire activity near utility equipment or other potential ignition sources.
Trial Dates Will Be Set But…
Right now, lawsuits against multiple defendants, including utility companies, landowners, and businesses, are moving forward. We will get trial dates and these cases will move to trial. If those trials go forward, those early test cases help set the tone for broader settlements.
But history suggests that most of LA fire suits will settle long before there is a trial. There is too much at stake not to reach a earlier settlement.
Eligibility for Fire Damage Lawsuits: Hurst, Eaton, and Palisades Fires
Our firm is actively pursuing cases for individuals and businesses impacted by the devastating Hurst, Eaton, and Palisades fires in California. These cases represent an opportunity for plaintiffs to hold responsible parties accountable for losses caused by faulty utility equipment, inadequate safety measures, and wrongful termination of insurance coverage. Below is an overview of the claims our lawyers are pursuing for each fire and the eligibility criteria for plaintiffs:
Hurst and Eaton Fires: Over 10,000 Potential Plaintiffs
The Hurst and Eaton fires, caused by faulty equipment maintained by Southern California Edison, have directly burned over 4,000 structures and affected countless others within a wide radius of the fire zones. Our firm is taking cases for the following types of claims:
- Loss of Life or Personal Injury
Plaintiffs who lost loved ones or suffered physical injuries, including burns or smoke inhalation, are eligible to file a claim. - Loss or Damage of Property
This includes claims for homes or businesses directly burned, as well as ash and smoke damage. Homes within a conservative radius of 3 to 5 miles outside the fire zone may qualify for remediation and diminution of value claims if covered by ash or smoke inside and out. - Loss of Business
Businesses that suffered interruptions, closures, or destruction due to the fire are eligible to file claims for financial losses. - Loss of Income
Individuals whose ability to work was impacted by fire-related damages can pursue compensation for lost wages or other income. - Emotional Distress
We are pursuing claims for individuals who suffered emotional injuries while fleeing the fire or upon returning to devastated property.
Palisades Fire
The Palisades fire presents unique legal challenges, with liability potentially linked to the LA Water Utility. While an initial lawsuit against the utility is unlikely to proceed due to procedural issues, there are avenues we are actively exploring:
- Claims Under the California Tort Claims Act
Plaintiffs may file claims against the utility, city, county, or state, provided they meet specific procedural requirements. While sovereign immunity often limits liability, political pressure may lead to a waiver or the creation of a victims’ fund (similar to the Maui wildfire response). - Insurance Termination Lawsuits
We are investigating claims of unlawful or wrongful termination of insurance coverage before the fires. For example, mass policy cancellations citing fictitious reasons like “mold on roofs” left thousands uninsured. If this angle proves viable, we will pursue insurers for wrongful conduct and failure to honor valid policies.
Am I Eligible for an LA Fire Lawsuit?
Our law firm believes you qualify to file a claim for losses resulting from the Hurst, Eaton, or Palisades fires if you meet one or more of the following criteria:
- You suffered personal injury or the loss of a loved one due to the fire.
- Your property was damaged or destroyed, or you experienced ash and smoke contamination within a 3 to 5-mile radius of the fire zone.
- Your business operations were disrupted, or you incurred significant loss of income due to the fires.
- You endured emotional distress from fleeing the fire or witnessing its aftermath.
- You experienced wrongful termination of insurance coverage prior to the fire, leaving you vulnerable to losses.
Getting an LA Wildfire Lawyer
If you believe you may have a viable LA wildfire lawsuit—either for property damage, personal injury, or wrongful death—call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation online.