Wildfire Litigation and Utility Liability in California

Intro

Wildfires in California increasingly give rise to complex litigation involving utilities, public entities, insurers, and thousands of affected property owners. While each fire has unique factual causes, many wildfire cases share a common legal framework—one that blends mass tort principles with California’s distinctive inverse condemnation doctrine. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents property owners and businesses in wildfire litigation where liability, causation, and recovery strategy depend on understanding how utility infrastructure intersects with constitutional and tort law.

Why Utilities Are Central to Wildfire Litigation

Electric utilities operate infrastructure that traverses vast and varied terrain, often through high-risk fire zones. Power lines, poles, transformers, and vegetation management practices frequently become focal points in wildfire investigations.

When utility equipment is alleged to have sparked or contributed to a fire, litigation typically follows—often on a mass scale due to the breadth of resulting damage.

The Role of Inverse Condemnation in Utility Fire Cases

In California, investor-owned utilities performing a public function may be subject to inverse condemnation liability when their infrastructure substantially contributes to wildfire damage.

This means that property owners may pursue compensation without proving negligence, provided they can establish causation and foreseeability. This framework distinguishes California from many other jurisdictions and has been central to major wildfire settlements.

Negligence and Inverse Condemnation Often Proceed Together

Wildfire lawsuits frequently assert both negligence and inverse condemnation claims. Negligence focuses on conduct—such as vegetation management, maintenance practices, or operational decisions—while inverse condemnation focuses on the constitutional obligation to compensate for damage caused by public use.

Pleading both theories allows plaintiffs to pursue recovery even if fault is disputed.

Causation Is the Primary Battleground

Because inverse condemnation does not require proof of fault, causation becomes the central issue. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that utility infrastructure was a substantial factor in starting or spreading the fire and that the damage was a foreseeable result.

These cases rely heavily on expert analysis, fire modeling, physical evidence, and coordination with investigative findings from agencies such as CAL FIRE.

Utility Defenses and Risk Allocation Arguments

Utilities often argue that extreme weather, third-party conduct, or unforeseeable conditions broke the causal chain. They may also contend that imposing liability unfairly shifts wildfire risk onto ratepayers.

Courts balance these arguments against constitutional principles and the realities of operating public infrastructure in fire-prone regions.

Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Economics

As with other inverse condemnation cases, prevailing plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees and costs. In large wildfire cases, this fee-shifting mechanism is often essential to making individual claims economically viable.

Fee exposure also influences settlement dynamics, particularly where litigation would otherwise extend for years.

Mass Tort Coordination and Case Management

Wildfire cases often proceed through coordinated proceedings that allow for shared discovery, joint experts, and efficient resolution of common issues.

Bellwether trials, global settlement frameworks, and claims-administration processes are frequently used to manage volume while preserving individualized damage assessments.

Insurance, Subrogation, and Parallel Claims

Wildfire litigation often unfolds alongside insurance claims and subrogation actions. Coordination between insured property owners, insurers, and counsel is critical to avoiding conflicts and preserving recovery.

Understanding how insurance recoveries interact with litigation claims is a key strategic component.

Damages Beyond Structural Loss

Wildfire claims may include not only structural damage, but also vegetation loss, soil instability, loss of use, business interruption, relocation costs, and long-term diminution in value.

Accurately framing damages requires early expert input and careful documentation.

Why Experience Matters in Wildfire Litigation

Wildfire cases involve sophisticated defendants, evolving regulatory frameworks, and intense public scrutiny. Effective representation requires familiarity with inverse condemnation law, mass tort coordination, and technical causation evidence.

Early strategic decisions often determine whether claims are positioned for meaningful recovery or prolonged dispute.

Closing

Wildfire litigation in California reflects the intersection of natural disaster, public infrastructure, and constitutional responsibility. When utility equipment contributes to widespread loss, inverse condemnation and mass tort principles provide a path to compensation—one that depends on careful causation analysis and strategic coordination. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents property owners in wildfire litigation with a focus on accountability, recovery, and long-term resolution grounded in California law.