Edison Seeks Appellate Relief to Limit Inverse Condemnation Liability in Wildfire Litigation

Southern California Edison (SCE) has filed a petition with the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a trial court ruling that permits wildfire-related claims to proceed under the doctrine of inverse condemnation. This development represents a significant legal maneuver with potential implications not only for the Fairview Fire litigation, but for the broader framework governing utility liability in California. 

At issue is whether Edison can avoid strict liability by characterizing the infrastructure involved as outside the scope of “public use.” The answer to that question carries substantial consequences for how wildfire losses are allocated—and whether affected property owners retain access to one of the most important legal remedies available in these cases. 

In its petition, Edison argues that the power line at issue should not give rise to inverse condemnation liability because it allegedly did not serve a public use. According to Edison, this distinction removes the legal basis for holding the utility strictly responsible for damages caused by its equipment. 

If accepted, this argument would represent a meaningful shift in how courts evaluate liability in wildfire cases involving public utilities. 

Why This Legal Issue Matters 

Inverse condemnation has long played a central role in California wildfire litigation. The doctrine is grounded in the principle that when infrastructure serving the public causes damage, the resulting losses should not be borne solely by individual property owners. Instead, those costs are distributed more broadly—reflecting the public benefit derived from the infrastructure itself. 

Edison’s position seeks to narrow the application of that principle. 

By attempting to classify certain infrastructure as outside the scope of “public use,” utilities could potentially limit their exposure in cases involving widespread property damage. This would have direct implications for wildfire victims, particularly in cases where traditional negligence claims may be more difficult or costly to pursue. 

Our Position 

Our firm has filed an opposition to Edison’s petition, addressing both procedural and substantive issues. 

As an initial matter, the petition was not filed within the required timeframe, raising a threshold issue regarding the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to consider it. 

Beyond that, the argument advanced by Edison is not supported by the underlying facts or applicable law. 

The infrastructure at issue was part of Edison’s electrical system and was owned, maintained, and operated by the utility. Importantly, the line remained energized and subject to inspection and maintenance obligations, even if it was not actively serving a specific customer at the time of the incident. 

Under California law, infrastructure that is integrated into a public utility’s system and maintained as part of its service obligations retains its public character. Courts have consistently recognized that utilities cannot avoid inverse condemnation liability by recharacterizing the purpose of their equipment after damage has occurred. 

Broader Implications 

This case reflects a broader effort by utilities to limit liability exposure in the context of increasing wildfire-related claims. The legal theory advanced here, if adopted, could narrow the availability of inverse condemnation and shift greater financial risk onto individual property owners. 

Such a result would run counter to the foundational policy underlying the doctrine—namely, that the costs associated with public infrastructure should be shared, rather than imposed disproportionately on those who suffer direct losses. 

The outcome of this petition may therefore influence not only the Fairview Fire litigation, but future cases involving utility-caused wildfires throughout California. 

Conclusion 

The Court of Appeal will determine whether to consider Edison’s petition and, if so, whether the arguments presented warrant relief. Regardless of the outcome, the issues raised are significant and underscore the evolving legal landscape surrounding wildfire liability. 

McGonigle Law remains actively engaged in these matters and continues to advocate for the rights of individuals and communities impacted by utility-related fires. 

If you have questions about wildfire-related claims or believe your property has been affected, we encourage you to contact our office at (800) 713-5260 to discuss your legal options. 

2026.04.10 Fairview Fire - Plaintiffs Opp to SCE Writ Fairview