California wildfire survivors sue insurers over smoke toxins in homes

By Michelle Myers, especially for CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Comment written by

More than 14 months after Eaton and the Palisades wildfires, thousands of families in California whose homes remain unmoved are scrambling to figure out if it’s safe to go inside.

The California Department of Insurance released in March a Report of the Task Force on Smoke Complaints and Remediationintended to clarify what it takes to make a smoke-damaged home safe.

However, of the task force’s 13 members, two seats went to insurance industry lobbyists and three went to remediation professionals whose firms work extensively with insurers. Not one place went to a fire survivor or an independent toxicologist. The report’s preference for industry-driven standards is a direct reflection of this composition.

What the task force found

The report acknowledges what survivors of more than a year have said: a wildland-urban interface fire it does not produce ordinary smoke because it is not an ordinary forest fire. Its contamination may include lead, asbestos, heavy metals, and other toxic substances that do not dissipate on their own.

More than 13,000 smoke damage claims were filed after the fires in January 2025. Insurers have handled them inconsistently — some flatly denied testing for smoke damage; others offered superficial cleaning instead of true sanitation.

Eaton Fire Residents United collected data from hundreds of tested homes showing 100% tested positive for lead before remediation and 60% tested positive after professional remediation. They live with pollution insurers who have told them it is allowed.

The report also acknowledges that there are no residential health standards for most of the pollutants found in such fire-affected homes. We know the toxins are there. We don’t yet have binding rules defining which levels are safe.

This absence is not a reason to wait; it is the clearest argument for legislative action.

Two accounts, two visions

Sacramento has two bills on the table. Assembly Bill 1642developed with the participation of Eaton Fire Residents United and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, establishes health approval standards and establishes the department as the lead law enforcement agency.

It also preserves survivorship rights under the Insurance Code, which has guaranteed coverage for smoke damage as a fire loss for more than a century. The bill passed the first committee 5-0.

Another measure, AB 1795 has provisions for consumers on paper — including additional cost-of-living protections, inspection deadlines and habitability language — but its home restoration safety standards require adherence to “accepted trade and industry standards and established technical guidelines” set forth in the Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification Institute and Restoration Industry Association manuals — the same guides the task force said have significant limitations.

The question AB 1795 ultimately answers is not “Is this home safe,” but “Is the contractor following the industry checklist?”

This approach serves the interests of insurers, but puts the health of consumers at risk.

The deeper problem is what happens in court. Under AB 1795, insurers will point to the industry checklist and say, “We followed the law.” Survivors trying to prove their homes were not properly cleaned will have an uphill battle against a standard the insurance industry wrote to take advantage of.

The insurance industry’s position on the bills says it all. Trade associations filed formal opposition to AB 1642, but none opposed AB 1795.

Sthe needs of survivors

The Eaton Fire homeowners I represent fear that their homes are unsafe and that their insurance coverage will expire before they get answers. They filed claims in good faith and were told their homes were clean – only to find lead, asbestos and heavy metals still there.

They want the meaningful support they are entitled to under their insurance policies.

AB 1642 moves toward resolution. But AB 1795 locks down the industry’s current approach before any real standards exist, then uses it as a defense in future remediation disputes.

California has been here before, during the asbestos crisis and the spate of mold lawsuits. Each time, the lack of clear standards created years of costly litigation and damages that fell hardest on ordinary homeowners.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.