Power companies, once again, are the primary defendants.

Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy. This legal axiom is the basis of the dozens of lawsuits that have been filed against various entities who, according to the plaintiffs, share responsibility for starting the 2025 California wildfires. 

The fires burned thousands of acres and damaged or destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. The blazes created vast clouds of smoke — laced with lead, asbestos, and other toxins — that shrouded much of Southern California.  We may not know the full extent of the damage and injuries for at least 50 years.  

Ubi jus ibi remedium basically means nothing happens by accident. That’s especially true of a widespread disaster like wildfires, and what plaintiff attorneys are working to establish. The lawsuits, most of which are pending in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura Counties, name various defendants and rest upon several legal doctrines.

Power Company Negligence

Substantial evidence indicates that Southern California Edison (SCE), one of the area’s largest electrical power providers, negligently maintained power lines, towers, transformers, and other electrical system infrastructure. SCE is a public utility which operates with a monopoly guaranteed by the California Public Utilities Commission, which has exclusive power to refuse to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity to permit potential competition to enter the market.

One of the latest “smoking guns” involves M16T1, a tower which had been inactive for more than fifty years. Shortly before the fires broke out, SCE recorded a fault on the power line which is located a few miles from Eaton Canyon.

Further evidence of SCE’s alleged negligence may be its delay in shutting off power to the area. The fires began in the first week of January, 2025. Soon, over 35 were raging through the area. Yet SCE allegedly refused to cut power to the affected area for approximately three weeks. Such evidence could convince a jury that SCE negligently caused fires, and damages could be staggering.

A California judge had ordered SCE to keep the power off in certain areas for at least 21 days, preserve critical infrastructure near the fire’s origin, and produce information concerning allegations that the company is destroying or concealing evidence. Most of this information is under seal, as the judge expressed concern about making discovery records public at such an early stage. 

Many negligence lawsuits against SCE also cite violations of Section 2106 of the Public Utilities Code (exemplary damages if the negligent act or omission was willful), and Section 13007 of the Health and Safety Code (individual liability for any person who “willfully, negligently, or in violation of law” causes fire-related damage.

Landlord Actions

When a disaster occurs, many people try to take advantage of the situation for financial gain. Price-gouging gas stations are probably the best example. Immediately following the outbreak of the 2025 California wildfires, some area landlords increased rent by over 200 percent. In response, California lawmakers capped rent increases at 10 percent for thirty days.  On February 25, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, a tenant advocacy group, filed an action against six Southern California landlords who allegedly increased rent in violation of this emergency order.

Inverse Condemnation

This doctrine, which is unique to California and similar to negligence per se, holds public utility companies, such as SCE, liable for wildfire damage as a matter of law.

The City of Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power is the primary defendant in these inverse condemnation claims. Plaintiffs argue the department’s mismanagement of water resources contributed to the fires. In an inverse condemnation claim, contributing to a problem is basically the same thing as causing that problem.

Lawsuits often point to the controversial Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades. Shortly before construction began in the late 1960s, water department officials cited the need for a water supply to combat fires on the south slopes of the nearby Santa Monica mountains. But officials drained the reservoir in February 2024, citing contamination concerns. With this nine-acre, 117-million-gallon reservoir out of commission, firefighters were unable to quickly contain the 2025 California wildfires.

Public Nuisance

Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3480, a public nuisance is any activity which “affects, at the same time, an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” This provision, and its equivalent in the penal code (Section 372) usually involves neighborhood nuisances, like barking dogs, loud parties, and trash piles. However, these laws could also apply to wildfire damage. Possible defendants include SCE, the Water Department, and the California Public Utilities Commission. 

Insurance Claims

More than 37,000 wildfire compensation claims have been filed, with insurance companies paying out approximately $12.1 billion to affected individuals and businesses. Claims typically cover property damage, rebuilding costs, replacement of personal belongings, temporary living expenses, and medical expenses related to fire injuries. California laws now require insurance companies to make advance payments of 30% of the policy’s dwelling limit (up to $250,000) without itemized claims. Bad faith lawsuits have been filed against insurance companies for unfairly denying coverage or delaying payments.

Case in Focus:
Lutzow v. California Southern Edison 

Here are some details of a case brought against Southern California Edison for damages resulting from the Eaton Fire, alleging negligence and violations of public utility regulations. The plaintiff attorneys are attorneys at Diab & Chambers — which has handle many wildfire cases — and the wildly known Texas plaintiffs’ firm, Baron & Budd.

The primary allegations in the complaint are: 

• Inverse Condemnation: Plaintiffs allege that Southern California Edison (SCE) and other defendants’ electrical systems caused the Eaton Fire, resulting in the taking of Plaintiffs’ private property. ​ 
• Negligence: Defendants failed to properly design, construct, inspect, maintain, repair, manage, and operate their electrical infrastructure, leading to the fire. ​ 
• Trespass: Defendants negligently allowed the fire to spread to Plaintiffs’ properties. ​ 
• Nuisance: Defendants’ actions created harmful conditions that interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. ​ 
• Violation of Public Utilities Code § 2106: Defendants failed to comply with the Public Utilities Act and related regulations. ​ 
• Violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007: Defendants negligently allowed the fire to be set and escape to Plaintiffs’ properties. ​ 

The laws or statutes cited include: 

• California Civil Code § 1714(a) ​ 
• Public Utilities Code §§ 702, 451, 2106 ​ 
• Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, 4894, 4435 ​ 
• Health & Safety Code §§ 13001, 13007 ​ 
• CPUC General Orders 95, 165 ​ 

The plaintiffs are requesting the following damages or relief: 

• Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property. ​ 
• Loss of use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of their property. ​ 
• Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits. ​ 
• Evacuation expenses and alternative living expenses. ​ 
• Erosion damage to real property. ​ 
• Past and future medical expenses. ​ 
• General damages for personal injury, emotional distress, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of quiet enjoyment of property. ​ 
• Attorneys’ fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs. ​ 
• Punitive and exemplary damages against SCE. ​ 
• Prejudgment interest. ​ 
• Any other relief deemed proper by the court. ​ 

Conclusion

Wildfires are happening with greater frequency and intensity. Climate change is exacerbating the issue, creating dryer conditions and more intense and sustained winds, all over longer stretches of time, i.e., it will always feel like it is fire season. With that will come more litigation — directly against responsible parties — and against insurance companies. It is also going to continue to affect the insurance market and real estate, and place increasing pressure on infrastructure. Health-related claims from exposure to toxic materials are an almost certainty.