Three fire districts sue PG&E over damage in 2015 fire

SACRAMENTO -- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has been hit with three new lawsuits stemming from the 2015 Butte Fire.

In each case, a fire district seeks to recover losses and the cost of fighting the fire, which started when a tree fell into a power line. Filed by Baron & Budd PC attorneys based in Solana Beach, the cases make multiple claims under negligence, public nuisance, inverse condemnation and other statutes.

Trees Inc., a contractor hired by PG&E to remove trees and debris around power lines, is also a named defendant in each case. Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 18-00238400; San Andreas Fire Protection District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 18-00238408; West Point Fire District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 18-00238420 (Sacramento Super. Ct., filed Aug. 8, 2018).

"We are aware of the lawsuits being filed," said Matt Nauman, a spokesman for PG&E. "Regardless of the next legal steps, nothing is going to distract us from our important safety work."

"All of us at PG&E share the view that the safety of the public, our employees and contractors is our absolute core value and non-negotiable top priority," he added.

John P. Fiske, a partner with Baron & Budd, said the fire districts "are governmental entities that have been affected and their taxpayer-funded resources have been affected, by these utility-caused wildfires, and are entitled to just compensation."

He said each case is new and not directly connected to previous litigation resulting from the Butte Fire. They seek compensation for loss of property and wages, the cost of fighting the fire and evacuating residents, attorney fees, and both general and punitive damages.

The West Point Fire District also claimed it lost a "Class III-A" fire engine to the blaze; these typically cost several hundred thousand dollars.

The complaint claims the defendants "ignored one of the most basic principles of vegetation management" when they removed part of a stand of trees near power lines in Amador County in January 2015.

The complaints allege one of the "interior trees" fell over because it lacked the support of other trees in the stand it has grown up with, striking the lines. The resulting blaze killed two people, burned 70,000 acres and destroyed nearly 1,000 structures.

"Unfortunately, this was not the first time PG&E chose to ignore basic safety standards in favor of increased profitability," the West Point complaint states. "According to records maintained by Cal Fire, approximately 100 fires were started and attributed to PG&E's transmission equipment in Calaveras County, Amador County, and the surrounding counties in the five years immediately preceding the Butte Fire."

A Cal Fire report issued last year found PG&E and its contractors responsible for the fire. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ruled in April that under California's inverse condemnation law, the utility could not pass the costs of the Butte Fire on to ratepayers.

But the utility won last month when the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled PG&E did not act with malice in causing the Butte Fire and could not be held liable for punitive damages. Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, C085308 (Cal. App. 3rd, filed Aug. 17, 2017).

Fiske was also among the witnesses testifying Thursday in a legislative hearing in Sacramento against a proposed change in utilities' liability under California law. A proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown, as laid out in SB 901, would relax the inverse condemnation standard.

Under inverse condemnation, utilities can be held liable for damage caused by their equipment even if there is no negligence involved. It is intended to balance out the power utilities enjoy to use eminent domain against property owners.

"As you saw in the testimony yesterday [Thursday], PG&E is doing absolutely everything it can to avoid liability," Fiske said.

"The consumer attorneys were standing up there with the counties, the cities and insurers," he added. "You may never see that again in the history of politics."