Lawyers divided over proposed PG&E fire settlement, attorney says

Plaintiffs' attorneys are split on whether to accept a global settlement from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for allegedly causing last year's Wine Country blazes or risk a prolonged court battle, according to a lawyer representing over 1,600 individual clients.

The public utility is arguing for the largest and most complex of the fires to be tried first to pressure plaintiffs into accepting a lower settlement offer, attorney Gerald Singleton said Tuesday.

"They're doing that because they know Tubbs Fire will be the last fire ready to be tried, and they want to prevent any of these cases from going to trial in the near future," said Singleton, of Solano Beach-based Singleton Law Firm. "The longer they delay, the more plaintiffs tend to get desperate and settle for lower amounts."

The global settlement would resolve all claims for about $8 billion as opposed to $15 to $20 billion Singleton said plaintiffs could get if they prevailed in court.

"I want trials where individual values are worked out and not clients fighting over crumbs," Singleton said.

The utility has not made a formal offer but both sides have informally discussed what it might look like, he added.

PG&E argued for the Tubbs Fire to be tried first in a joint case management conference statement submitted last week to San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow, who heads the complex litigation department.

The Tubbs fire may comprise two-thirds of all potential damages and determining liability for this blaze may encourage speedier resolution of all coordinated proceedings through a settlement, according to PG&E attorney Kevin Orsini in the statement.

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, has not yet issued its investigative report on the Tubbs Fire, which killed at least 23 people and destroyed more than 8,000 commercial and residential structures.

"In PG&E's mind, if they can get their arms around the largest fire, they'll be better able to understand what it looks like globally for them," said Frank Pitre, a partner with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, co-lead counsel for the individual plaintiffs.

"That interest is inconsistent, in my view, with trying to get at least one of these fires teed up, so we can determine what issues of liability may be extrapolated to the other cases though," he added. California North Bay Fire Cases, CJC-17-004955 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 20, 2017).

Other plaintiffs' attorneys were more skeptical about the utility's motives.

Proposing the Tubbs fire go to trial first contradicts public statements by the utility in reaching a speedy resolution, according to plaintiffs' attorney Michael Kelly, also co-lead counsel for the individual plaintiffs, of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger.

Its real motive is "delaying the trial," Kelly said.

"It's true for any defendant: the longer you can hold onto your money, the better off you are," he added.

Plaintiffs' attorneys instead proposed trying the Atlas Fire first. The blaze concerns tree line contact with power lines, which will serve as a template for other cases that involve similar issues.

Cal Fire concluded in June the Atlas Fire, which killed six in Napa County, started as a result of PG&E equipment and referred the case to local prosecutors.

"We can learn stuff from an Atlas [Fire] case based on information we have whereas we don't have that ability in a case where we don't access to the physical evidence," Pitre said.

"Time is a major concern to plaintiffs' attorneys because many of their clients were underinsured and Additional Living Expense coverage often expires in two years, when the first of the fires is scheduled to head to trial," he added.

Singleton said the utility could settle claims for damages available under inverse condemnation and litigate the rest in court, like it did in litigation for the 2015 Butte Fire.

"Because people got so much money under inverse condemnation, plaintiffs were willing to take a smaller amount than they would get if they went to trial for negligence," he said.