Edison persuades judge to bring phone giant into fire case

A Los Angeles County judge allowed Southern California Edison Co. to bring in AT&T as a cross-defendant to share potential liability for the 2018 Woolsey Fire.

SoCal Edison sought to bring in the telecommunications provider last month, arguing AT&T owned the second unidentified line near where the Woolsey Fire started, according to a state agency report. The fire burned more than 98,000 acres in Los Angeles and Ventura counties before it was fully contained in January 2019.

AT&T spokesperson Jim Kimberly said Wednesday the company does not own or maintain the equipment involved in the fire.

"We will fight these allegations in court," Kimberly said.

An investigative report released by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said Edison's equipment caused the fire when two communication lines came into contact. Edison faces thousands of claims arising out of the blaze in a mass consolidated coordinated action presided over by Judge William F. Highberger. During Tuesday's status conference, Highberger expedited his decision to grant Edison's motion for leave to file its cross complaint, which was not supposed to be heard until next month.

"Edison denies that it is responsible for the damages alleged by plaintiffs. However, to the extent plaintiffs are successful, upon information and belief, AT&T's telecommunication lines are similarly situated to those owned by Edison, and AT&T's conduct also contributed to the ignition of the Woolsey Fire," Edison's lawyers from Hueston Hennigan LLP wrote in their Oct. 30 motion. Edison now seeks relief for claims including contractual and equitable indemnity and contribution against AT&T.

Chris Abel, a spokesperson for Edison, said Tuesday the decision to bring AT&T into the case was not an easy one to make.

"We do not take the filing of a cross complaint lightly," Abel said. "SCE asked the court's permission to file its cross complaint in the Woolsey Fire litigation to ensure that any responsibility and liability is properly allocated to all those who may have contributed to losses suffered by individuals as a result of the Woolsey Fire."

A final determination of cause and liability, including conclusions of whether the utility or AT&T were negligent, will be made during the course of litigation, Abel added.

"We keep in our thoughts all those who have been affected by wildfires and its devastating impact to our communities. At SCE, safety remains our number one priority and we will continue to provide assistance and support to those affected," Abel said.

While Cal Fire never identified who owned that second line, the agency and the California Public Utilities Commission sought information last year from AT&T about its potential ownership. AT&T replied it did not own the line, and the line involved is not the type the company uses; furthermore, no records of reinstalling or performing maintenance on any communication lines after the 2005 Topanga Fire exists, the company said.

"However, the letter includes AT&T's responses to CPUC in which AT&T concedes it paid bills issued by Edison for leased space on the relevant poles," Edison's motion states.

Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, who represents several claimants and is co-lead for the individual plaintiffs, said he and his fellow lead attorneys had no problems with Edison's latest move.

"This won't affect us," Ravipudi said, adding that claimants still assert the utility is responsible.

The cross complaint denies any culpability on Edison's part but says if Edison were to be held liable, AT&T should bear legal responsibility as well. Southern California Edison, Edison International v. AT&T Corp., Pacific Bell Telephone Co., 18STCV08779 (L.A. Super Ct.)

According to the cross complaint, a joint pole agreement typically allows telecommunications providers and other utilities that perform any service to the public to buy space on poles rather than install their own. AT&T, Edison and 30 other companies entered into the joint pole agreement in 1998, ensuring the least number of poles as practicable are to be used. The membership is limited to entities providing a utility service.

Edison claimed in its court filings that AT&T's denial of ownership in the poles without telling Edison or the Joint Pole Committee constitutes a violation of the rules. The utility commission's rules also say lines permanently abandoned must be removed by its owners so that lines don't become a hazard, Edison argued. That means, a pole member can't give up all interest until all attachments have been removed, including guys, arms and services, Edison argued.