5 law firms join in new suit against PG&E over wildfires

A group of five California law firms filed another suit against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Tuesday, alleging the utility disregarded safety practices and foreseeable hazards associated with aging infrastructure and claiming it has liability for recent wildfires.

The latest lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of three Sonoma County residents who lost their homes in the fires, including former San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan.

Similar to other suits against the utility company filed in the aftermath of the fires, the complaint contends that PG&E’s failure to prevent the wildfires is most evident in its vegetation management program, aging infrastructure, and failure to modify operations during the summer when wildfires are more likely. Jordan et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CGC-17-562457 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 14, 2017).

PG&E spokesman Donald Cutler, in a prepared statement, emphasized that the reasons for the wildfires remain under investigation.

We are aware that lawsuits have been filed,” Cutler said in the statement. “There has been no determination on the causes of the fires. We’re focused on doing everything we can to help these communities rebuild and recover.”

Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, one of the attorneys involved in the new suit, commented Tuesday, “There’s been an organizational failure to inspect and maintain its facilities in light of what they know to be an aging infrastructure that’s vulnerable to the risk of wildfire. Regrettably, it has been catastrophic events that have caused everyone to pay attention to what PG&E is not doing.”

The other law firms in the North Bay Fire Consortium are Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP; Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger; Panish Shea & Boyle LLP; and Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery.

Pitre alleged that PG&E had decided not to follow what he said is regular industry practice of reprogramming “reclosers” to not restart an electrical current to power lines in case there is an interruption, which he said decreases the likelihood of a downed power line sparking a wildfire.

“PG&E chose to accept the risk of loss of life and property because they wanted to save costs from the inconvenience of sending people out when people complained of a power outage,” Pitre said.

Pitre, who represented plaintiffs in a lawsuit against PG&E for the San Bruno pipeline explosion that ended with changes in the structure of its corporate governance as part of the settlement, called for more transparency and an independent organization to audit the effectiveness of its programs and assess whether there are dangers presented by aging infrastructure.