THE 2025 PALISADES FIRE
SOME CRITICAL QUESTIONS ON THE MIND OF VICTIMS
The Palisades Fire has raised significant legal questions. Among these questions are the following:
1. Can victims obtain compensation from the individuals and entities responsible for causing the fire or contributing to its devastating spread?
2. Did insurance company malfeasance contribute to the losses sustained by victims?
3. How can a victim receive representation without paying an attorney “up front”?
EXAMPLES OF CASES AGAINST THOSE THAT CAUSED THE FIRE
Numerous lawsuits have already been filed against various parties and entities alleged to have caused or contributed to the fire. Theories of liability in those cases already on file also include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Inverse Condemnation: Similar to “eminent domain” types of claims, victims may have viable claims for “inverse condemnation” against governmental entities such as the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power and other entities, based upon the failure to provide safe electrical facilities, a reliable water system to support firefighting efforts, and many other things which may support a claim that property was “taken”, among other things. Other governmental entities and private entities are also potentially liable.
- Governmental Tort Claims/Negligence: Victims may have viable claims for improper maintenance of electrical infrastructure, failure to put power lines below ground, negligent failure to de-energize lines, failure to maintain fire trails and firebreaks, irrigation issues, brush clearance issues, and more may support liability, among other things, under dangerous condition of public property theories, breach of mandatory duty, negligent governmental employee, negligent governmental contractor theories, and more.
- Premises Liability, Public and Private Nuisance, Trespass: Victims may have viable claims against private and public entities for dangerous conditions that contributed to the fire’s origin and spread, among other things.
- Statutory Violations: Victims may have claims that include portions of Health and Safety Code §13007-13008, Public Utilities Code §2106, Public Resources Code §§4170-4171, Government Code §835 (dangerous condition of public property), Public Utilities Code 2106, and CCP 338 (by Pub resources Code 4170, 4171, 4125), among other codes.
The above is not an exhaustive list of claims, statutes, or theories. However, nearly every type of potential claim comes with deadlines. For example, many types of claims against governmental entities require the filing of a proper government claim within six (6) months of the incident—that is, within six (6) months of the date the fire started at the latest. That deadline, for example, is rapidly approaching. If it is missed, certain types of claims could be barred or limited absent a court granting relief from the deadlines. While some types of claims even against governmental entities have longer statutes of limitations, but it is best practice to include all claims and theories in your government lawsuits to provide the maximum chance of success.
Governmental entities are expected to assert defenses based on sovereign and governmental immunity, including but not limited to: immunity related to the failure to provide fire protection services, discretionary immunity, natural condition immunity, design immunity, and weather condition immunity. The viability and applicability of these defenses – like the claims themselves – will likely be litigated extensively and may require appellate court rulings to determine their ultimate viability.
EXAMPLES OF CASES AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANIES
In addition to direct fire damage claims, victims may also choose to pursue claims and lawsuits against insurance companies for bad faith, unfair business practices, agent and broker negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duties, among other things. Among the scenarios being investigated and litigated by different law firms are the following, among others:
- Coverage Denials and Underpayment: Some homeowners whose properties were damaged or destroyed by the fire are facing wrongful denials, delayed payments, or bad faith underpayment of claims, and more.
- Non-renewals and the FAIR Plan: Insurers are alleged to have wrongfully dropped fire coverage, steering policyholders toward the California FAIR Plan without fully disclosing other options, and provided low appraisals to ease people into “FAIR Plan” – plus, the FAIR Plan coverage is limited in amount and coverage type.
- Lowball Appraisals: Some carriers are accused of undervaluing properties to steer policyholders they “cancel” for fire to the FAIR Plan coverage and encourage participation in the Plan. Carriers are also undervaluing the property losses from the fire.
- Misrepresentation and Deception: Policyholders may have been misled into believing they had no other insurance options, when in fact other carriers could have provided better coverage than the FAIR Plan.
- Broker Liability: Claims made against brokers that failed to provide the desired coverage.
The above is not an exhaustive list of potential claims of insurance company wrongdoing. Complex lawsuits – including class actions – have already been filed against the over 100 insurance companies participating in the FAIR Plan. These suits allege conspiracy and antitrust violations (under California’s Cartwright Act, Business and Professions Code §16720) and unfair competition violations (under Business and Professions Code §17200). Claims for property damages and treble damages and other relief has been made. Individual claims for bad faith conduct by insurance companies are also being presented based upon bad faith tactics, lowball offers and appraisals, and broker negligence for not procuring available requested coverage.
ATTORNEYS FEES – NO RECOVERY, NO ATTORNEYS FEE
What about attorney fees? Most wildfire and insurance bad faith cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. That means clients typically do not pay any attorney fees upfront. Instead, the law firm is paid a percentage of any recovery obtained, if any. Costs associated with litigation – such as hiring experts, conducting depositions, and court filing fees – are typically advanced by the attorney and also reimbursed from the recovery at the end of the case.
HOW TO TAKE ACTION
If you have suffered losses from the Palisades Fire, it is critical to act without delay. Important deadlines are rapidly approaching. Preserving your rights requires prompt action. Different law firms are handling different aspects of these complex cases, and connecting with the right lawyer for your specific loss is essential. Our law firm can help facilitate referrals to the individual law firms that may be able to help you for various aspects of the Palisades Fire. For a free consultation regarding your potential claims and a referral to an attorney handling Palisades Fire cases, please contact us at otto@olhpc.com or our office number: (800) 667-1880. You can also text the principal of the firm, Otto Haselhoff, Esq., directly at his cell phone: (310) 995-6886 for a quicker response.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
The materials and information in this flyer have been provided by Otto L. Haselhoff, PC, hereinafter “OLHPC”, for informational purposes, is not legal advice, and is not intended to create (and does not create) any relationship between OLHPC and the recipient. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these web site materials creates an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. An attorney-client relationship cannot be formed by reading this information. The only way to become our client is through mutual agreement in a formal written document signed by both you and by OLHPC. No Action or Advice: Until OLHPC agrees to accept a case (including yours) and a contract OLHPC prepares is signed by you and then countersigned by OLHPC, OLHPC cannot, and will not, take any action to protect your rights. Any information that you send us in an e-mail message might not be confidential or privileged, and sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of OLHPC. If you send e-mail or text to OLHPC, you may receive a reply, but the sending of an e-mail or receipt of a response does not constitute the formation of a contract or create any obligation on the part of the sender or the recipient.
Law Offices of Otto L. Haselhoff, P.C.
201 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl., Santa Monica, CA 90401
Office: (800) 667-1880