In Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. So. Cal Edison Co., No. B320948 (May 23, 2024), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that a complaint adequately alleged a claim for inverse condemnation by asserting a privately-owned public utility’s actions substantially caused a wildfire.
The court rejected the utility’s argument that alleging that the utility knew its infrastructure was old and improperly maintained and it failed to remediate these known risks was not enough to show substantial causation, and that this negligence shows only that its actions were a concurrent (and therefore not substantial) cause of the wildfire.
The court’s analysis turned on the California Supreme Court’s Oroville decision in which the court refined the “substantial causation” requirement where a secondary concurrent cause may be enough to absolve the government from inverse liability.
A large part of the opinion is about whether a stipulated judgment is appealable (yes, it is), and if you are an appellate wonk, please read that part. But start on page 20 if you want to understand what drove the court’s conclusion on what it takes to adequately plead an inverse claim in a California wildfire (or other “negligence-like”) inverse claim.
Here, the master complaint alleged that SCE knew its infrastructure was old and improperly maintained for safety, yet it failed to properly assess and remediate these known risks, resulting in the Thomas Fire and other wildfires. On December 4, 2017 SCE’s electrical distribution system, including its power lines, conductors, electrical infrastructure and equipment and transformers “arced,” igniting the Thomas Fire at two separate locations. Although it had the authority to do so, SCE did not power down its electrical infrastructure before the Thomas Fire ignited, despite a “Red Flag Warning” of high winds and hazardous conditions. The Thomas Fire burned more than 281,000 acres in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Simple Avo further alleged its property in Ventura was destroyed causing damage to its crops, structures, and loss of profits. The master complaint concluded, “The above described damage to Plaintiffs’ property was legally and substantially caused by the actions of SCE in their installation, ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance of the electrical distribution system for a public use.”
These allegations are sufficient to allege Simple Avo’s damages were “substantially caused” by SCE’s old and improperly maintained electrical distribution system.
We are not persuaded by SCE’s argument that its own negligence is a concurrent cause of the Thomas Fire that absolves it of inverse condemnation liability.
Slip op. at 34-35.
Case remanded for more.
Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. So. Cal. Edison Co., No. B320948 (Cal. Ct. App. May 23, 2024)