Plaintiffs Allege PG&E's Negligence Caused Fires

LAWSUITS FILED BY SURVIVORS OF CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES AGAINST PG&E

Our attorneys have filed lawsuits on behalf of survivors of the Tubbs, Atlas, Nuns, Sulphur, Redwood Valley, and LaPorte fires.

Our clients include homeowners and renters who lost their homes, property, and personal items in the fires. We also represent businesses affected by the fires.

The lawsuits allege that each of the fires started when PG&E’s power lines came into contact with vegetation because PG&E was negligent in failing to properly inspect and maintain its infrastructure and clear vegetation from its power lines, as required by state law.

According to the complaints, PG&E’s failures ultimately caused 19 separate fires to ignite in one night.

With the lawsuits, our clients hope to recover money to make them whole, and compensate them for the loss of value to their properties, evacuation and temporary housing costs, emotional trauma, and loss of income.

Find out now if you have a claim for compensation from PG&E, free.

Do I have a claim against PG&E?

Why Bring A Lawsuit?

For Northern California Residents & Business Owners

What Can a Lawsuit Provide?

Money for Lost Value of Homes and Properties

Damage to your home and other structures, including any amount insurance doesn’t cover
The lost personal property and contents of your home, including items that are not covered or are depreciated by insurance
Trees and landscaping on the property that was damaged or destroyed, including the actual replacement costs of trees and landscaping to the condition they were prior to the fire
Erosion damage

Reimbursement of Evacuation & Alternative Housing Costs

The time and money spent on hotels/food/gas during an evacuation and displacement
Rent for temporary housing and any additional costs incurred, including extra time and mileage spent commuting to your workplace

Compensation for Emotional Trauma

In certain circumstances the law holds corporations that acted irresponsibly accountable for the stress and trauma resulting from evacuation and from losing your home and possessions, as well as fearing for your safety and the safety of your family.

Pay for Lost Income and Wages

Loss of personal income including sick and vacation days they were forced to use
Loss of business income

Meet Our Team

Northern California Fire Lawyers is a coalition of prominent Northern California law firms: Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle, Danko Meredith, and Gibbs Law Group. Our firms consist of seasoned trial lawyers, leading national personal injury attorneys, and experienced complex litigators. Attorneys on our team have been appointed by California judges to serve in leadership positions in a number of large, coordinated fire and disaster cases. We bring a deep knowledge of the systems and fire-prevention policies of major utility companies and are well-positioned to leverage the hard work from our previous cases to benefit our clients.

Steve Lopez represents consumers and employees who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. He has prosecuted a variety of consumer protection cases ranging from false advertising to defective products, as well as complex employment cases involving misclassification and wage and hour claims brought under state and federal laws.

Steve Lopez

Gibbs Law Group LLP

Kristine has been named one of the Top 50 women lawyers in Northern California by Thompson Reuters and San Francisco Magazine, as well as one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Northern California.

Kristine Meredith

Danko Meredith

Mike has frequently listed as one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Northern California and has been this year named Trial Lawyer of the Year by the San Mateo Trial Lawyers Association. He has been honored with a nomination for Trial Attorney of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California. He has been named among the Best Lawyers in America consistently since 2009.

Mike Danko

Danko Meredith

In addition to his work representing victims of the PG&E gas line explosion and Butte fires, Dario helped to achieve a record-breaking settlement in an insider trading case implicating CEO of Oracle Larry Ellison. Dario in a Stanford Graduate and is often called upon by the courts to act as arbitrator in certain matters. He has served as adjunct professor of law at Canada College since 1998.

Dario de Ghetaldi

Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle

Amanda was appointed by the court to serve as co-liaison counsel for all the victims from the San Bruno fires. She currently serves as court-appointed co-liaison counsel for over 3,000 victims involved in the Butte Fire litigation. She has been a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys of California’s Woman Advocate of the Year Award. She also co-founded the San Mateo County Bar Association Legal Clinic Committee, which provides on-site legal services to residents of Shelter Network and Samaritan House’s homeless shelters on the Peninsula.

Amanda Riddle

Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle

Eric brings over two decades’ experience representing clients against large and powerful defendants including utility companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, auto makers, tech companies, and others. The Daily Journal named Eric to its prestigious list of “Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California” for 2016 and Law360 recognized Eric as a “2016 Consumer Protection MVP,” the only plaintiff-side lawyer in the country selected in that category. Consumer Attorneys of California selected Eric as one of the finalists for the Consumer Attorney of the Year award for work in achieving $100 million settlement for customers against Chase Bank.

Eric Gibbs

Gibbs Law Group LLP

Trial Lawyer of the Year

San Mateo Trial Lawyers Association

Mike Danko

Consumer Protection MVP

Law360

Eric Gibbs (sole plaintiffs’ lawyer recognized nationwide)

Top 30 Plaintiff Lawyers in California

Daily Journal

Eric Gibbs

Top 50 Women Lawyers in Northern California

Kristine Meredith

A.J. de Bartolomeo

Trial Lawyer of the Year

Finalist, Consumer Attorneys of California

Mike Danko

Consumer Attorney of the Year

Finalist, Consumer Attorneys of California

Eric Gibbs

Woman Advocate of the Year

Finalist, Consumer Attorneys of California

Amanda Riddle

Av-Preeminent

Martindale-Hubbell – highest class of attorneys for professional ethics and legal skills

Eric Gibbs

A.J. de Bartolomeo

A History of Safety Violations

PG&E’s Record in Wildfires

Trauner Fire:

Wildfire that swept through 500 acres of land in Western Nevada County. The fire reached the town limits and destroyed 12 homes and 22 other structures, including a schoolhouse in 1994.

A jury convicted PG&E of 739 counts of criminal negligence for failing to trim trees near its power lines — the largest criminal conviction in history against the state’s largest utility.

San Bruno Pipeline Explosion:

Natural gas pipeline that exploded and released a fireball that killed eight people and devastated the residential community of San Bruno, California in 2010.

PG&E was fined $1.6 billion by Public Utility Commission for causing the explosion (the largest such punishment ever levied on an American public utility)

PG&E was criminally convicted on charges of violating federal pipeline safety regulations and obstructing an official National Transportation Safety Board probe into the blast.

Butte Fire:

2015 wildfire that ignited when a tree came in contact with a power line, ultimately destroying more than 70,000 in Calaveras County destroying 921 structures

PG&E fined $8.3 million by Public Utilities Commission

Just like in these previous examples, our lawsuits allege that PG&E was negligent in failing to inspect and maintain its infrastructure and clear vegetation from power lines, which ultimately caused the 19 separate fires to ignite in one night throughout Northern California.

Allegations in Our Clients' Lawsuits

PG&E Knew About the Risk

Our complaint alleges that PG&E was aware of the risk of wildfires in Northern California and problems with its infrastructure. As described in the complaint, in 2013, an outside consulting group conducted an independent review of PG&E’s proposed expenditures. The report concluded that “several aspects of the PG&E distribution system present significant safety issues,” including PG&E’s use of “obsolete” wiring subject to “corrosion issues.” The Report specifically describes:

  1. PG&E’s wiring is “more subject to breakage”
  2. The vast majority of PG&E’s distribution system is ungrounded
  3. As a result, a “wires-down situation” (a broken wire contacting an object or the ground) will often remain energized until a [PG&E employee] arrives and disconnects the power line source of the feed.” This has “contributed to a number of fatalities and injuries.”

According to the complaint, PG&E also has a long-standing practice of using reclosers throughout its system to automatically restart power after interruptions, even thought it knows these devices may cause wildfires. Reclosers are circuit breakers equipped with a mechanism that can automatically re-energize a power line after it has been “opened” due to a fault. PG&E’s Senior Vice President of Electrical Operations has stated that PG&E has the ability to reprogram its reclosers to not automatically restart power during fire season. He described the effect as “you take the reliability hit, but you gain the wildfire benefit.” According to the complaint, PG&E did not turn off a number of reclosers in the area of the Northern California Fires, but instead left them active until directed to turn them off by CalFire between October 12-15, 2017 (several days after the fires initially ignited).

Additionally, the government has warned PG&E about the risks. As described in the complaint, the California Public Utilities Commission (or “CPUC”) directed PG&E to take remedial measures in 2014 to reduce the likelihood of fires, and agreed to provide additional vegetation management funding to make sure these measures would be performed. In 2017, the CPUC again directed PG&E to continue increased efforts to reduce fire risk.

Allegations in Our Clients' Lawsuits

PG&E's Executive and Incentive Management Program

The complaint alleges that despite its knowledge of the risks, PG&E maintained an incentive program for executives and management focused on reducing the number of customer complaints about outages rather than complying with vegetation management regulations. As the complaint describes, PG&E performs two kinds of vegetation management work:

  1. Routine compliance work — focused on clearing the required distances between energized conductors and vegetation
  2. Reliability work — focused on reducing the number of vegetation-related outages

Because outages in urban areas generate more complaints per square mile, reliability work tends to be performed in densely populated urban areas, while routine compliance work is performed in rural areas.

As described in the complaint, in 2006, PG&E developed the “Vegetation Management Incentive Initiative” directed at reducing the amount of routine compliance work in favor of reliability work.

Specifically, PG&E tied its executive and management bonuses to reducing customer complaints over outages. According the complaint, PG&E funded its outage reduction work by reducing the number of trees it inspected as part of state regulatory requirements.

For example, in 2011, PG&E set a goal to reduce the number of trees for which it performed compliance work by 180,000 trees. In 2012, PG&E aimed to reduce the number of routine compliance trees again by 25%. And in 2014, PG&E set to reduce the number of routine compliance trees annually by 7.5% through 2016. According to the complaint, these actions contributed to causing the Northern California Fires.