Edison International’s Southern California utility is urging a Los Angeles judge not to find the company liable for property damages from a 2025 Los Angeles wildfire that destroyed more than 9,400 buildings.
Southern California Edison argued in a court filing last week that the transmission tower where last year’s deadly Eaton Fire allegedly ignited had been idle for so long, since 1971, that it no longer qualifies as the kind of public infrastructure that triggers California’s strict liability rule for utilities.
Utilities across the US West have faced mounting liabilities tied to destructive wildfires that are happening more frequently due to climate change. Edison faces suits from more than 10,000 plaintiffs alleging its equipment started the fire, which killed 19 people, devastated the middle-class neighborhood of Altadena and burned 14,000 acres in the surrounding area.
Related: California Utility Has Offered $750M in Program for Eaton Fire Victims
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle has set an Aug. 11 hearing on a request by insurance companies for a ruling, without a jury trial, that Edison must pay compensation for property losses under the legal doctrine of inverse condemnation.
The insurers have paid out billions of dollars in claims to home and business owners who lost property in the fire. Under inverse condemnation, a utility is responsible for losses if its equipment is found to have started a fire, regardless of fault.
In the filing, SoCal Edison and its parent company argued that the insurers’ motion should fail on several grounds, a key defense being that the idle transmission line in question was taken out of service and disconnected from the grid in 1971.
California law limits inverse condemnation to property serving a public use, and SoCal Edison argues the facility falls outside of that definition in part because it served no customers at the time the fire started.
Related: Edison Gets Mixed Rulings on Bid to Spread Blame for LA Wildfire
The utility also argued in the filing that factual disputes remain even if its equipment is ultimately found to have sparked the fire. There are disagreements over the sequence of events that led to the dormant power line being re-energized, and the company also contends that overgrown brush and water system failures may have contributed to the damage from the Eaton Fire.
The insurers, joined by Los Angeles County and other public entities, argued in their own filing that the evidence leaves no real dispute, pointing to two electrical faults recorded on Edison’s own equipment on the night of the fire, matched with two arc flashes captured on camera at the tower where the blaze allegedly started. They also called Edison’s public-use argument “fatally flawed,” saying it rests on a misreading of earlier wildfire litigation.
Gerald Singleton, one of the lead lawyers representing property owners, said he supports the insurers’ arguments, though his clients are litigating their claims separately.
“Since there are multiple videos showing that Edison’s equipment started the fire, Edison will have a difficult time arguing” that inverse condemnation doesn’t apply, he said in an email.
The official investigation into the exact cause of the Eaton Fire is ongoing.
David Eisenhauer, a spokesperson for Edison, said in a statement the utility will respond in court to the insurers’ allegations.
“We remain committed to cooperating with the official investigation into supporting the Altadena community as they recover and rebuild,” Eisenhauer said.
Copyright 2026 Bloomberg.
Topics
Louisiana
The most important insurance news,in your inbox every business day.
Get the insurance industry’s trusted newsletter
