Edison fire settlement details blasted by plaintiffs' attorneys as unfair

Plaintiffs' attorneys who have filed hundreds of lawsuits over the Eaton Fire slammed Southern California Edison's draft, litigation-avoiding, compensation program as a self-serving "affront" to the judicial process that will ultimately hurt the fire victims the utility says it's trying to help.

"Punitive damages, intended to punish bad corporate actors through their profits, are alleged in these lawsuits and Edison knows it. Now, the same company that caused the destruction in the first place is trying to circumvent the victims' lawyers with categorically unfair settlement parameters as if anyone can trust them to be competent and fair," said a statement Thursday from Frantz Law Group signed by James P. Frantz, Edward M. Burak and Jason R. Dawson.

Plaintiffs' attorneys first voiced their concerns in July, when Edison (SCE), which denies responsibility for the blaze, announced that it was working on a program to directly compensate victims of the Jan. 7 fire that burned structures and vegetation in Altadena, Pasadena and the Angeles National Forest. Criticism intensified when the utility released its first draft of the proposal on Sept. 17. Gursey v. Southern California Edison, 25STCV00731 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2025).

The 27-page document lays out a dual-track claims process. The "Fast Pay" option requires limited documentation, has fixed compensation for many economic loss categories, and promises claimants a compensation offer within 90 days after they submit a claim. SCE says it will combine the cost of rebuilding primary structures and the value of landscaping lost in the fire into a single per-square-foot amount and offer $550-$750 per square foot of habitable space of the primary structure, subject to adjustments for insurance coverage.

A sample calculation says that a 1,500- square-foot home valued at $1.2 million before the fire and $600,000 after the fire could get $600 per square foot to rebuild, for a total of $900,000.

The "Detailed Review" option requires more documentation and a longer processing period that could include physical inspections of the properties.

SCE spokeswoman Gabriela Ornelas declined to address the negative tenor of the plaintiff attorneys' comments. She said Thursday that the program is designed to help community members focus on their recovery.

"As part of the development process, SCE is engaging community members and stakeholders including plaintiff attorneys and elected officials to gather input on the program before it is finalized," Ornelas said.

"The program protocol is a draft document, and a final protocol will be released upon the launch of the program later this fall. If community members and attorneys have feedback on the program, we encourage them to share their comments with us ...," she continued.

Plaintiffs' attorney Gerald Singleton of Singleton Schreiber commented on the residential properties rebuild costs. "One of the things they're doing here - they wrote it to have eye-popping numbers, but when you dig in it's nowhere near that. I think they're hoping to pick off a bunch of people very cheaply. What they haven't taken into account is that they have upset a lot of people and have driven up the cost of settling cases for people that don't accept partial payment."

Attorneys at Kabateck LLP are still evaluating the document, said firm partner Anastasia Mazzella.

She pointed out that litigation will lead to settlement on individualized damages for property loss and emotional distress. SCE's draft program caps emotional distress at $100,000 for adults and $50,000 for children, she said.

"SCE's program is a one-size fits-all, take-it or-leave-it payment designed to save SCE money as opposed to making victims whole. Asking people to take less money for a quicker payout is fundamentally unfair given SCE's negligence," she said.