Legal Claims and Deadlines for Palisades Wildfire Losses
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Managing Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed January 1, 2026
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
I'm a victim of the Palisades fire.
Attorney Answer
You likely do have claims — and for a Pacific Palisades property owner the most urgent deadline is not the lawsuit deadline but the government claim you may have to present first.
Pacific Palisades is served by a municipal utility, and a municipal utility is a public entity. Claims against a public entity must be presented to it before any suit is filed, and Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) sets the periods. A claim relating to death, injury to person, or injury to personal property or growing crops must be presented not later than six months after accrual. A claim relating to any other cause of action — which includes damage to real property, the loss that dominates a wildfire case — must be presented not later than one year after accrual. A homeowner therefore has two different presentation deadlines running simultaneously: the shorter one for injuries and for contents, the longer one for the house and land. Anyone who reads only "six months" and concludes their property claim is dead has been misinformed.
The deadlines for actually filing suit are separate and longer. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years for personal injury or wrongful death; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(b) gives three years for trespass upon or injury to real property. These run alongside the presentation requirement, not instead of it, and satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
On the theory of liability, California law is unusually favourable to fire victims. In Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co., 208 Cal.App.4th 1400 (2012), the Court of Appeal held that Edison, a privately owned utility, may be liable for inverse condemnation, reasoning that a property owner damaged by utility operations suffers a disproportionate share of the cost of the public improvement regardless of whether the utility is governmentally or privately owned. The court also rejected Edison's argument for a reasonableness standard and agreed that a strict liability standard governs. More recently, in Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 102 Cal.App.5th 281 (2024), arising from the 2017 Thomas Fire, the court affirmed that Edison may be held liable in inverse condemnation and rejected its argument that inverse condemnation reaches only government-owned entities. The practical significance for you is that under inverse condemnation a property owner does not have to prove ordinary negligence — and a municipal utility is a public entity in its own right, so the theory reaches it directly. The presentation requirement still applies.
One thing to set aside: the California Wildfire Fund created by AB 1054, Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 3280 et seq., is not something you apply to. It is a utility solvency and ratepayer cost-recovery mechanism administered through the CPUC, it covers only the participating investor-owned utilities, and it would not apply to a fire caused by a municipal utility. Do not treat it as a compensation route.
What you can do
1. Preserve everything now: photographs before and after, your policy and declarations page, every communication with your insurer, receipts for temporary housing and replacement necessities. 2. File and pursue your own homeowner's insurance claim if you have not. It is separate from any claim against whoever caused the fire, and it does not replace one. 3. Find out which utility's equipment is implicated in your area. That single fact determines whether you are on the government-claim track or suing a private utility. 4. Present a government claim to the responsible public entity, and present it for both categories of loss — the personal injury and contents claim and the real property claim — since Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) puts them in different buckets. 5. If you think a presentation period may already have run, raise it with a lawyer immediately. There is a statutory procedure for applying for permission to present a late claim, and it carries its own deadline. 6. Keep a running record of economic losses: temporary housing, lost income, out-of-pocket costs, and destroyed contents. 7. Do not sign any release in exchange for a quick payment from any entity.
⏱ Time limits apply. The government claim comes first. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) requires presentation within six months of accrual for death, personal injury, and personal property, and within one year for other causes of action including damage to real property. Missing presentation can bar the lawsuit entirely, long before the two-year period in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 or the three-year period in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(b) would expire. Which deadline attaches to which of your losses, and when each began to run, depends on your specific facts — have them confirmed now.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 102 Cal.App.5th 281, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 305 (Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 7, May 23, 2024) (No. B320948) — California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7
Arising from the 2017 Thomas Fire, the court affirmed that Southern California Edison — an investor-owned, privately held utility — may be held liable in inverse condemnation, rejecting SCE's argument that inverse-condemnation liability reaches only government-owned entities. A privately owned utility operating under an exclusive state-granted franchise can be treated as a public entity for inverse-condemnation purposes, meaning a property owner need not prove ordinary negligence to recover for fire damage caused by the utility's equipment. - Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co., 208 Cal.App.4th 1400, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 (2012) — California Court of Appeal
The court held that Edison, a privately owned utility, 'may be liable for inverse condemnation' and affirmed the judgment, reasoning that a property owner damaged by utility operations 'suffers a disproportionate share of the cost of the public improvement regardless of whether the utility is governmentally or privately owned.' The court further rejected Edison's argument that a reasonableness standard borrowed from the flood-control cases should apply, agreeing with the trial court that a STRICT liability standard governs a privately owned utility's inverse-condemnation liability.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in California
- File or look up a case through the California Courts.
- Get free civil legal help from LawHelpCA.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
I have already been paid by my homeowner's insurer. Does that end my claim against the utility?
Not necessarily. Insurance rarely covers the full loss, and the uninsured shortfall, along with losses your policy excludes, can still be pursued. Your insurer may separately pursue the responsible party for what it paid you, which is a different claim from yours and does not extinguish your own.
What is inverse condemnation and why does it matter to me?
It is a claim that property was damaged by a public improvement, and its advantage is that it does not require proving ordinary negligence. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co. held a privately owned utility may be liable in inverse condemnation and that a strict liability standard governs, and Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. reaffirmed that the theory is not limited to government-owned entities.
Do I have to present a government claim if a private utility caused the fire?
No. The presentation requirement in Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) applies to claims against public entities. If the responsible party is a purely private investor-owned utility, you go straight to the limitations periods in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(b). Establishing which utility is implicated is therefore the first practical step.