Boverman, Natalie. May 2022. The non-wildness of wildfires. Debunking “wild”fires through their infrastructural and built systems of maintenance. infrastructureforesttownhome Photo courtesy Landsat 8 Satellite.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.
The non-wildness of wildfires. Debunking “wild”fires through their infrastructural and built systems of maintenance.
infrastructureforesttownhome Photo courtesy Landsat 8 Satellite.
Natalie Boverman HIS 4468 Architecture and Property, Lisa Anne Haber-Thomson A case study on California’s Camp Fire of 2018, a class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and their negligence, to debunk the idea that these wildfires are a wild phenomenon.
The designer can analyze unique scales of the built environment through information put forward in the case and their knowledge of built structures. Stitched together, these scales work to both debunk the wildness and emphasize the maintenance component of the Camp Fire. In this sense, the case offers information for the designer to use, and the designer offers further evidence for the case.
A fire spreads within a forest because its floor is covered in dead, dry organic material (due to a lack of forest maintenance).
The non-wildness of wildfires. Debunking “wild”fires through their infrastructural and built systems of maintenance.
HIS 4468 Architecture and Property, Lisa Anne Haber-Thomson
In this case, the fires are preventable-man-made-infrastructure-gone-wrong-and-unmaintained events that devastate the built, and natural, environments. The case will be examined through scales of maintenance that both operate within and manifest the built environment. The spatial understanding of the architect and the planner offer a scale of systems to analyze maintenance, and lack thereof: A “wild”fire begins because an unmaintained tree falls on a power line and ignites (due to a lack of utility maintenance).
A fire burns a whole neighborhood because homes are too close together (due to a lack of development regulation).
infrastructureforesttownhome
Natalie Boverman
A fire licks up a home because its roof is covered in pine needles (due to lack of personal maintenance).
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.3
A case study on California’s Camp Fire of 2018, a class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and their negligence, to debunk the idea that these wildfires are a wild phenomenon.
The non-wildness of wildfires. Debunking “wild”fires through their infrastructural and built systems of maintenance. “wild” adjective 1. living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated 2. not inhabited or cultivated “wild” noun 1. a sparsely inhabited or uncultivated region or tract 2. a wild, free, or natural state or existence “wild” adverb 1. without regulation or control 2. off an intended or expected course
2. It is crucial to understand the warmer climate and rising temperatures in the west, and across the globe, play perhaps the largest role in extended fire seasons. Jennifer Balch, Director of CU Boulder’s Earth Lab and an assistant professor in the Department of Geography puts it this way: “These findings... Suggest we should be most concerned about where it overlaps with human impact... Climate change is making our fields, forests and grasslands drier and hotter for longer periods, creating a greater window of opportunity for human-related ignitions to start wildfires.”3 This increased precarity is what makes human maintenance that much more crucial.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.4
The fire season has tripled in duration from 1992 to 2012, from 46 days to 154 days. In 2017 records showed that on average it cost the United States $2 billion per year to fight fires alone, not including economic impacts on recreational or local and personal assets. In the same 21 year period, it was found that 84%1 of fires, not including controlled burns, were human-ignited (non-wild), with only the remaining 16% being started naturally, wildly, through lightning.2
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.5 4. Class-action suit: twenty-two plaintiffs. 4
7
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321 COMPLAINT PG&E CORPORATION, a California Corporation, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive,Defendant(s). )))))))))_ www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.6
7. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (founded 1905) is an investor-owned utility with publicly traded stock and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to over 16 million people in northern and central California.5 PG&E’s revenue in 2021 is reported at $20.64 billion USD.6 It is relevant to note that utility companies make money by building infrastructure, not from profit margins selling the actual utility. They are regulated to provide their products “at cost” to consumers and they make money from investments in the actual infrastructure needed to make and deliver that product (pipes, substations, transmission lines, etc.). This means that the more infrastructure that a utility builds,the higher the profits they will generate. This also incentivizes companies to build more infrastructure, rather than work on efficiencies, repairs, or operations.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321 COMPLAINT-iCONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................ 2 III. THE PARTIES.................................................... .... 3 A. Plaintiffs ..................................................................................................................... 3 B. Defendants ................................................................................................................. 4 IV. THE FACTS .......................................................................................................................... 7 A. PG&E IS REQUIRED TO SAFELY DESIGN, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 7 B. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE HISTORY OF SAFETY FAILURES ............................ 8 C. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOR CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF THE CAMP FIRE .................................................................................................... 12 1. The 2013 Liberty Report Found that PG&E’s Distribution System Presented “Significant Safety Issues” .......................................................... 12 2. PG&E’s Failure to Treat the Conditions of Its Aging Electrical Assets as an Enterprise-Level Risk ......................................................................... 13 3. PG&E’s Failure to Inspect, Maintain, Repair, or Replace Its Equipment ... 13 4. PG&E’s “Run to Failure” Approach to Maintenance .................................. 15 5. PG&E’s Purchase of Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages ............... 16 D. PG&E’S CORPORATE CULTURE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CAMP FIRE ......................................................................................................................... 16 E. THE CAMP FIRE .................................................................................................... 19 V. CAUSES OF ACTION ........................................................................................................ 21 A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AGAINST PG&E ....................................................................................................................... 21 B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 22 www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.7
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321 COMPLAINT-iiC. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE § 2106 ...................... 24 D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 26 E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 27 F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 28 G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS............................................................................................... 31 H. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 13007 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS .................................................. 32 VI. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ......................................................................... 32 www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.8
Residential Homes 4, 293 Other/Unclassified 3,817 Mobile/Motor Homes 490 Commercial Buildings 30 Schools 19 Churches Data from the LA Times9 Through the term wildfire and the confusion that follows such destruction, media outlets have abstracted home destruction to a point where a fire’s path and victims appear random. After fires such as the Camp Fire, residents and observers alike are at a loss as to why some homes remain standing, why the fire seems to have swallowed whole neighborhoods but left occasional homes alone. Where the media repeats the narrative of randomness and fear, the architect can debunk the unpredictability. Experts are starting to point to two scales of architectural issues that directly affect the integrity of homes and their security under fire threat: the materials used in home construction and the distance between homes. Experts are looking to a landmark 2008 California Building Code designed specifically for fire-prone regions that made a difference. The well-practiced architect is versed in building code and compliance, but rarely are the ramifications understood. In this sense, bringing forth a lawsuit not only provides owners the justice they deserve but also evidence for the architect, and legislative bodies that the scale of structure and material matters. According to an analysis done by McClatchy’s of Cal Fire data and Butte County property records, 49% of homes built after 2008 were damaged as opposed to 82% of homes built prior to the code update.10 One specific example is that the 2008 building code stipulates upgraded attic and foundation vents. Specifically, the screen mesh size can determine whether or not embers are permitted through the screen and into vulnerable parts of the house. Evidence has been CONT. 8 Sean and Dawn Herr’s home (bottom) remains while their neighbor’s homes have been destroyed. The family credits the 2008 building code for the safety of their home, which was built in 2010. Photo courtesy of Hector Amezcua/Sacramento Bee11
3. The map below shows the current fire perimeter of the Camp Fire: 4. The photo below provides a glimpse of the devastation awaiting the residents of Paradise. This photo depicts an aerial view of the intersection of Skyway and Pearson Road, Paradise: www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.9
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
8. Cal Fire puts the number of destroyed structures much higher, at 10,15518,804.
COMPLAINT-1I. INTRODUCTION
2. The Camp Fire torched the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Pulga, Mineral Slide, Irish Town, Centerville, Parkhill, and Concow, and terrorized several neighboring towns including Oroville, Gridley and Chico. To date, it has killed 42 people, making it the deadliest fire in California history. The Camp Fire tore through and burned 117,000 acres, threatened 15,500 structures and destroyed 7,102 structures. Over 150,000 residents have been displaced from their homes as a result of the Camp Fire; over 200 people are unaccounted for. Particularly hard hit was the town of Paradise where 80 to 90 percent of the homes were destroyed.
1. Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants PG&E CORPORATION, a California Corporation, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation (collectively, “PG&E” or the “PG&E Defendants”) and DOES 1-50, inclusive, for damages they suffered arising out of a fire ignited on the early morning of November 8, 2018, at Camp Creek Road in the town of Paradise, Butte County. This fire has since been named the “Camp Fire.”
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395(a) and 410.10 because both PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company were incorporated in California, have their headquarters in San Francisco, California, engage in the bulk of their corporate activities in California, and maintain the bulk of their corporate assets in California.
5. The Camp Fire started when a high voltage transmission line failed igniting a vegetation fire.
8. Venue is proper in San Francisco County pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395.5 because both PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company perform business in San Francisco County, have a principal place of business in San Francisco County, and a substantial part of the events, acts, omissions, and transactions complained occurred in San Francisco County. www.norcalfirelawyers.com
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.10 found that homes that had 1/4” mesh screens burned, while homes built to the 2008 building code standard, which specifies screen mesh sizes to be between 1/8” and 1/16”, seem to have directly benefiited from that fire protection.12 Wind gusts can carry embers several miles ahead of the main wall of fire and bring some of the worst damage as they essentially create an interior structure fire before you’ve seen the flames. There are also maintenance measures to be taken at the scale of the home or the owner, such as sweeping roofs and limiting vegetation and combustible mulch in areas adjacent to the home. This buffer space is termed “defensible space” in much of landscape and fire Somedesign.cities are taking matters into their own hands beyond building codes. The City of Big Bear Lake, for example, passed an ordinance declaring wood shake shingle roofs a severe fire hazard and required homeowners to replace them by 2012. With the help of state and federal grants the city was able to offer cash incentives of up to $4,500 for new roofs.13
COMPLAINT-2-
While the points made by Chris and Sapsis point us towards larger distances between homes, it is not so simple. Generous distances between homes is what has in part led to the sprawl of some of California’s growing metropolitan regions, pushing suburbs directly into the state’s fire hazard severity zones. Perhaps the use of “defensible spaces” and non-combustible landscaping can create the necessary fire breaks needed while maintaining various levels of density.
6. Plaintiffs are among those damaged by the Camp Fire. Each Plaintiff individually seeks just compensation and damages as more particularly described below.
The second scale that begins to debunk the randomness of home destruction is the distance between homes. Dave Sapsis, a Cal Fire wildland fire scientist, states that homes that are stacked so close to one another are like “sticks in a fireplace...One little house built to a new standard, surrounded by a bunch of older stuff, is likely to get swamped.”14 Sapsis says that architectural building codes are not enough, that planners and designers must play closer attention to how neighborhoods are being laid out, allowing for fire breaks and enough space between homes, in the same way architects may design firebreaks in a rated wall assembly. Fires in dense areas often spread independent from trees or natural material, and instead can jump from home to home (often flammable materials), which explains why a whole culde-sac or row of mobile homes particularly can be destroyed so Chrisquickly.Dicus, a forestry and fire expert at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo claims that “In the name of affordable housing, we’re moving housing closer and closer to one another.. that serves to have houseto-house-to-house ignition.”15
COMPLAINT-3-
15. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs STEVE CHERMS and CHARLES F. BALDWIN, TRUSTEE OF THE FTF TRUST, were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
12. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff RITA BELL was an owner and/or occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
17. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. Their children, PABLO SANCHEZ and K’LANIE HILL, are minors for whom guardians ad litem will be appointed and the names of those guardians will be added to a complaint at the first opportunity.
16. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs TANYA JENKINS and JOHN JENKINS were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
III. THE PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS 10. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff SHERRI QUAMMEN was an owner and/or occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
9. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
18. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs ADAM HARGRAVE and STEPHANIE HARGRAVE were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
14. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs EDITH PARKERSON, RANDALL PARKERSON, and CYNTHIA SPENCE were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
11. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff LAURA SMITH was an owner and/or occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
19. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
13. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN BELL and LESLIE BELL were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
Sean and Dawn Herr stand between their home, which was largely spared, and their charred shed and car in Paradise. The family credits the 2008 building code for the safety of their home, which was built in 2010. Many residents, including the Plaintiffs of this suit, were not as lucky. Photo courtesy of Hector Amezcua/Sacramento Bee16
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.11
b. The PG&E Defendants do not operate as completely separate entities, but rather, integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose;
25. The PG&E Defendants are jointly and severally liable for each other’s negligence, misconduct, and wrongdoing as alleged herein, in that:
c. Pacific Gas & Electric Company is so organized and controlled, and its decisions, affairs, and business are so conducted as to make it a mere instrumentality, agent, conduit, or adjunct of PG&E Corporation; www.norcalfirelawyers.com
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.12
B. DEFENDANTS
21. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs PAUL KEMBLOWSKI and SANDRA HOFF were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
20. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs TERESE BELLAMY and KERRY BELLAMY were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
23. Defendant PG&E Corporation is an energy-based holding company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is the parent company of Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
COMPLAINT-4-
22. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs ROBERTO SANCHEZ QUINTERO and MAYRA ACOSTA were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire.
24. Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company is incorporated in California and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company provides public utility services that include the transmission and distribution of natural gas, and the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity to millions of customers in Northern and Central California, including the residents of Butte County.
a. The PG&E Defendants operate as a single business enterprise operating out of the same building located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California, for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out PG&E Corporation’s business and operations and/or for the benefit of PG&E Corporation;
COMPLAINT-5-
g. PG&E Corporation has control and authority to choose and appoint Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s board members as well as its other top officers and managers;
j. The PG&E Defendants are insured by the same carriers and provide uniform or similar pension, health, life, and disability insurance plans for employees;
l. The PG&E Defendants invest funds from their programs and plans by a consolidated and/or coordinated Benefits Committee controlled by PG&E Corporation and administered by common trustees and administrators;
m. The PG&E Defendants have unified personnel policies and practices and/or a consolidated personnel organization or structure;
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
f. The PG&E Defendants’ officers and managers act in the interest of PG&E Corporation as a single enterprise;
d. Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s income results from function integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale with PG&E Corporation;
o. The PG&E Defendants are represented by common legal counsel;
i. PG&E Corporation maintains unified administrative control over Pacific Gas & Electric Company;
p. PG&E Corporation’s officers, directors, and other management make policies and decisions to be effectuated by Pacific Gas & Electric Company and/or otherwise play
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.13
k. The PG&E Defendants have unified 401(k) Plans, pension and investment plans, bonus programs, vacation policies, and paid time off from work schedules and policies;
e. The PG&E Defendants’ officers and management are intertwined and do not act completely independently of one another;
h. The PG&E Defendants do not compete with one another, but have been structured and organized and their business effectuated so as to create a synergistic, integrated single enterprise where various components operate in concert one with another;
n. The PG&E Defendants have unified accounting policies and practices dictated by PG&E Corporation and/or common or integrated accounting organizations or personnel;
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
26. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants were the partners, principals, agents, employees, servants, and joint venturers of each other, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of their authority and relationship as partners, principals, agents, employees, servants and joint venturers with the permission, knowledge, and consent of each other.
COMPLAINT-6roles in providing directions and making decisions for Pacific Gas & Electric Company; q. PG&E Corporation’s officers, directors, and other management direct certain financial decisions for Pacific Gas & Electric Company including the amount and nature of capital outlays; r. PG&E Corporation’s written guidelines, policies, and procedures control Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s employees, policies, and practices; s. PG&E Corporation files consolidated earnings statements factoring in all revenue and losses from Pacific Gas & Electric Company, as well as consolidated tax returns, including those seeking tax relief; and/or, without limitation; t. PG&E Corporation generally directs and controls Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s relationship with, requests to, and responses to inquiries from, the CPUC and uses such direction and control for the benefit of PG&E Corporation.
27. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of Does 1 through 50, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, under Code of Civil Procedure § 474, sue these Doe Defendants under fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Each of the Doe Defendants is in some manner legally responsible for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ damages alleged in this Complaint were legally caused by each of those Doe Defendants.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.14
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.
30. At all times PG&E had and continues to have a duty to properly construct, inspect, repair, maintain, manage, and operate its transmission lines and other electrical equipment.
32. In January 2014, Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency due to California’s continued drought. In June 2014, the CPUC directed PG&E and all investor owned utilities pursuant to Resolution ESRB-4 to take remedial measures to reduce the likelihood of fires started by or threatening utility facilities. In addition, the CPUC informed PG&E that it could seek recovery of incremental costs associated with these remedial measures outside of the standard funding process, agreeing to provide additional funding on top of vegetation management funding already authorized in order to make sure remedial measures would not go unperformed due to lack of funding.
28. PG&E owns, installs, constructs, operates, and maintains overhead power lines, together with supporting towers and appurtenances throughout Northern and Central California for the purpose of transmitting and distributing electricity the general public. Those transmission lines existed near the origin points of the Camp Fire.
COMPLAINT-7IV. THE FACTS A. PG&E IS REQUIRED TO SAFELY DESIGN, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
18 18. The provision of utilities, and infrastructure at large, has been one of the earliest examples of privatepublic partnerships in the United States in our initial and continual attempt to allow Capitalism and public provision to remain linked. The financial structure of these investor-owned publicly traded companies is the result of their creation and general regulation, but their operational constraints and incentives are continually changing as context and local government change. Governor Brown’s 2014 Resolution not only required PG&E to increase maintenance, but paid them to do so. PG&E failed to take additional measures.
1517
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
29. Electrical infrastructure is inherently dangerous and hazardous, and PG&E recognizes it as such. The transmission and distribution of electricity requires PG&E exercise an increased level of care in line with the increased risk of associated danger.
17. The first fact states that “PG&E is required to safely design, operate, and maintain its electrical systems” and sets forth that it is the duty of the utility to design, manifest, and produce the look and function of the infrastructure itself. This puts PG&E in the realm of those manifesting the built form, and holds it responsible to the failures of said design. Akin to architecture, the design, operation and maintenance are inseparable aspects of a built form. However, and also parallel to architecture, the design, and creation, of the thing are often prioritized over the operation and maintenance of the object. The complaints filed in this suit are largely around maintenance, which for the purposes of this investigation shall be inseparable from “design.”
33. PG&E has a duty to manage, maintain, repair, and/or replace its aging infrastructure to protect public safety. These objectives could and should have been accomplished in a number of ways, including, by not limited to, putting electrical equipment in wildfire-prone areas underground, increasing inspections, developing and implementing protocols to shut down electrical operations in www.norcalfirelawyers.com
19 19. Among operational changes, physical suggestions continue to tie maintenance and operation to design and the built environment. Moving equipment underground has a direct affect on the built environment and adjacent structures and utilities.
31. In the construction, inspection, repair, maintenance, management, ownership, and/or operation of its power lines and other electrical equipment, PG&E had an obligation to comply with, inter alia: (a) Code of Civil Procedure § 733; (b) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; (c) Public Utilities Code § 451; and (d) General Order Nos. 95 and 165.
20 20. The following set of “safety lapses” sets forth the “precedent” by which PG&E has continued to operate. Though precedent here differs from legal precedent, it does aid in setting the argument of previously understood outcomes and events. Here the list of historical events, or precedents as one might understand them, best serves as a rhetorical device in the suit, proving historical facts and presenting analogous situations, and perhaps more importantly evokes an emotional history of neglect.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.16
a. 1981 San Francisco Gas Explosion: A PG&E gas main in downtown San Francisco exploded, forcing 30,000 people to evacuate. It took workers nine hours to shut off the gas main’s manual shut off valves and stop the flow of gas that continued to feed the flames in the interim.
c. 1994 Trauner Fire: The Trauner Fire burned down a historic schoolhouse and 12 homes near the scenic Gold Rush town of Rough and Ready. Investigators determined that the Trauner Fire began when a 21,000-volt power line brushed against a tree limb that PG&E had failed to keep trimmed. Through random spot inspections, the investigators found hundreds of safety violations in the area near the Trauner Fire, approximately 200 of which involved contact between vegetation and PG&E’s power lines. In June 1997, a Nevada County jury found PG&E guilty of 739 counts of criminal negligence and it was required to pay $24 million in penalties. After the trial, a 1998 CPUC report revealed that PG&E diverted $77.6 million from its tree-trimming
COMPLAINT-8emergency situations, modernizing infrastructure, and/or obtaining an independent audit of its risk management programs to ensure effectiveness.
36. The Camp Fire was not an isolated incident. PG&E has a long history of safety lapses that caused injury and death to California residents, and destroyed or damaged their property:
34. PG&E knew or should have known that a breach of those standards and duties constituted negligence and would expose members of the general public to risk of death, injury, and damage to their property.
b. 1992 Santa Rosa Gas Explosion: Two people were killed and three others were injured when a PG&E gas line exploded in Santa Rosa. The pipeline was improperly marked, failing to give proper notice to contractors working in the area. A contractor hit the pipe with a backhoe, causing the pipe to leak several months later.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
B. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE HISTORY OF SAFETY FAILURES
35. PG&E’s safety record is an abomination. PG&E has developed a r egular pattern of placing its own profits before the safety of the California residents it serves and shows no intention of changing this pattern.
1 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publishedDocs/published/Report/40886.pdf www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.17 21 21.
e. 1999 Pendola Fire: A rotten pine, which the government said PG&E should have removed, fell on a power line, starting the Pendola Fire. It burned for 11 days and scorched 11,725 acres, mainly in the Tahoe and Plumas national forests. PG&E paid a $14.75 million settlement to the U.S. Forest Service in 2009. That year, the utility also reached a $22.7 million settlement with the CPUC after regulators found PG&E had not spent money earmarked for tree trimming and removal toward those purposes.
g. 2004 Sims Fire: In July 2004, the Sims Fire burned over 4,000 acres of forest land in the Six Rivers National Forest and the Trinity National Forest. A federal lawsuit Design as maintenance, here, a designed lack of maintenance.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
d. 1996 Mission Substation Electrical Fire: At approximately 1:00 AM on November 27, 1996, a cable splice at PG&E’s Mission Substation in San Francisco short-circuited, burning and melting the insulation around the splice. Smoke from the fire rose through a floor opening above the splice into a switch cabinet. That smoke was so thick that it caused a flashover between phases of the bus bars connecting the overhead N bus to the switch. This caused insulation on the N bus to ignite and a circuit breaker to open, resulting in the loss of power to a group of PG&E customers. The substation was unmanned at the time and the fire was only discovered by chance by an employee who had stopped by the substation to use the restroom.
f. 2003 Mission Substation Electrical Fire: One third of San Francisco lost power following a 2003 fire at PG&E’s Mission District Substation. The fire burned for nearly two hours before PG&E workers arrived on the scene to discover the damage. The CPUC report of the investigation, described PG&E’s careless approach to safety and apparent inability to learn from its past mistakes, stating “PG&E did not implement its own recommendations from its own investigation of the 1996 fire.”1
COMPLAINT-9budget to other uses from 1987 to 1994. During that same time, PG&E underspent its authorized budgets for maintaining its systems by $495 million and, instead, used this money to boost corporate profits.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
k. 2008 Rancho Cordova Gas Explosion: An explosion and fire caused by a natural gas leak destroyed a residence in Rancho Cordova, California, killing one person, injuring five others and causing damage to several other nearby homes. The cause of the explosion was the use of a section of unmarked and out-of-specification pipe with inadequate wall thickness that allowed gas to leak from a mechanical coupling installed approximately two years earlier. In November 2010, the CPUC filed administrative charges alleging that PG&E was at fault for the blast because PG&E should have discovered the improper repair job that caused the explosion, but failed to timely do so. As a result, the CPUC required PG&E to pay a $38 million fine.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.18
l. 2008 Whiskey Fire: The June 2008 Whiskey Fire burned more than 5,000 acres of land in the Mendocino National Forest. The fire started when a gray pine tree that did www.norcalfirelawyers.com
COMPLAINT-10alleged that PG&E failed to remove a decaying tree, which fell on a transmission line and ignited the blaze.
j. 2005 San Francisco Electrical Explosion: In August 2005, a PG&E electrical transformer exploded beneath the San Francisco financial district at Kearny and Post Streets, severely burning a woman who had been walking by. A lawsuit by the injured woman settled for an undisclosed sum.
h. 2004 Fred’s Fire: The Fred’s Fire started Oct. 13, 2004, near Kyburz in El Dorado County. A lawsuit filed by the U.S Government claimed that employees of PG&E’s contractor lost control of a large tree they were cutting down. It fell onto a PG&E powerline and caused a fire that burned over 7,500 acres. PG&E and its contractors paid $29.5 million to settle the lawsuits over the Fred’s Fire and the Sims Fire.
i. 2004 Power Fire: In October 2004, the Power Fire burned approximately 17,000 acres on the Eldorado National Forest and on private timberlands. A federal lawsuit alleged that the Power Fire was ignited by a lit cigarette that was dropped by a PG&E tree trimming contractor. PG&E and its contractor paid the federal government $45 million to settle the lawsuit.
m. 2009 San Francisco Electrical Explosion: In June 2009, a PG&E underground vault exploded in downtown San Francisco leaving thousands without power.
n. 2014 Carmel Gas Explosion: In 2014, PG&E employees damaged a gas pipeline in Carmel while digging because they lacked the legally required records on the location of the pipeline. Gas escaping from the pipeline exploded and destroyed an unoccupied cottage. The CPUC fined PG&E $37.3 million and PG&E paid an additional $1.6 million to settle a related lawsuit filed by the City of Carmel
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
o. 2015 San Francisco Electrical Explosion: In September 2015, a PG&E underground transformer exploded in Bernal Heights, injuring two people, one of them critically.
m. 2010 San Bruno Gas Explosion: On September 9, 2010, PG&E’s disregard of public safety caused the death of eight people, injured 58 people, and destroyed an entire neighborhood in San Bruno, California when one of its gas pipelines exploded and burst into flames. After the explosion, the NTSB issued a report that blamed the disaster on PG&E’s poor management of its pipeline. In April 2015, the CPUC slapped PG&E with a $1.6 billion fine for causing the explosion and diverting maintenance funds into stockholder dividends and executive bonuses. Further, in January 2017, a federal jury found PG&E guilty of six felony charges. The judge ordered it to pay $3 million in fines for causing the explosion, and ordered PG&E to submit to court supervision of its natural gas operations. .
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.19
p. 2015 Butte Fire in Calaveras County: On September 9, 2015, the Butte Fire ignited when a 44 foot tall, weak grey pine tree that should have been removed by PG&E struck a 12,000-volt overhead power line that was owned and operated by PG&E. The resulting fire burned for 22 days, killing two people, burning over 70,000 acres, destroying and damaging 475 residences, 343 outbuildings, and 45 other structures. The fire also left tens of thousands of dead or dying trees and the risk of water pollution www.norcalfirelawyers.com
COMPLAINT-11not have the required clearance from a PG&E transmission line came into contact with the line. PG&E and its contractors agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a federal lawsuit.
37. On May 6, 2013, a report was sent to the Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC from the Liberty Consulting Group who had been retained to conduct an independent review of capital and operations and maintenance expenditures proposed by PG&E (hereinafter the “2013 Liberty Report”).2 The 2013 Liberty Report concluded that: “several aspects of the PG&E distribution system present significant safety issues.” It also found: (a) “addressing risks associated with electrical distribution components has been overshadowed by electric trans mission and gas facilities;” (b) “addressing aging infrastructure and adding SCADA to the system comprise the major focuses of safety initiatives for the distribution system;” and (c) “current employee/contractor serious injury and fatality levels require significantly greater mitigation.”
C. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOR CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF THE CAMP FIRE
1. The 2013 Liberty Report Found that PG&E’s Distribution System Presented “Significant Safety Issues”
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
o. 2017 North Bay Fires: On or around the night of Sunday, October 8, 2017, the North Bay Fires started when power lines, transformers, conductors, poles, insulators, reclosers, and/or other electrical equipment constructed, owned, operated, managed, and/or maintained by PG&E fell down, broke, failed, sparked, exploded, and/or came into contact with vegetation, all because of PG&E’s disregard of mandated safety practices and the foreseeable risks associated with its infrastructure. The North Bay Fires claimed the lives of at least 43 people, injured many others, burned over 245,000 acres, and destroyed over 14,700 homes.
2 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publisheddocs/efile/g000/m065/k394/65394210.pdf 2017 North Bay Fires decimated the Coffey Park neighborhood of Santa Rosa. The California Department of Insurance stated that the fire had resulted in $9 billion in insured losses. It is estimated that the Camp Fire resulted in $11.4 billion in insured losses. Photo courtesy of John Burgess/Press Democrat.22
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.20
COMPLAINT-12and erosion in its wake. Thousands of people were forced to evacuate their homes, and thousands were damaged in their person and property.
43. PG&E failed to perform the necessary inspections, maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of its electrical equipment.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.21
2. PG&E’s Failure to Treat the Conditions of Its Aging Electrical Assets as an Enterprise-Level Risk
42. PG&E’s failure to treat its aging infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk in a reasonable manner contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire.
40. After the release of the 2013 Liberty Report, PG&E began to publicly state that they were treating wildfires as an enterprise-level risk. However, the methodology used by PG&E to evaluate the severity of that risk was and is unscientific and was and is not based on valid statistical methodology. Instead, PG&E’s method is to engage in a group discussion where an agreement is reached on a specific risk level based on personal opinion, anecdotal evidence, and factual misconceptions. This process has led to PG&E’s failure to properly evaluate the frequency and severity of the risk posed by wildfires.
COMPLAINT-13-
38. Another recommendation of the 2013 Liberty Report was “the establishment of a formal asset management program in Electric Operations.” According to the report, “aging infrastructure is best addressed by having a strategic asset management program in place. These types of programs, such as the PAS 55 program, force a detailed and thorough condition assessment survey of the major assets. These types of formal programs also take failure modes into consideration. Long term sustainable plans can then be prepared to address the asset conditions. A sustainable asset management will mitigate system safety risks from aging infrastructure, which constituted a major portion of the safety items in this GRC.”
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
41. Further, PG&E has a corporate policy in which they knowingly “accept” a certain level of risk, meaning that PG&E choose not to maintain their electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure in a manner that will reasonably prevent all risks of which they are aware, thereby leaving the public at risk of death, personal injury, and damage to property.
39. The 2013 Liberty Report specifically recommended that “PG&E treat aging infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk.”
3.PG&E’s Failure to Inspect, Maintain, Repair, or Replace Its Equipment
44. For example, a 2014 audit of PG&E’s North Valley Division revealed that between 2009 and 2014 there were over 3,400 PG&E repair and maintenance requests in the area of the Camp Fire that were completed past the date of scheduled action.3 This number shows a staggering disregard of the safety to the people who eventually found themselves in the path of the Camp Fire.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.22 23
COMPLAINT-14-
45. According to State Senator Jerry Hill, these findings are especially troubling because “they are getting the money for these, they are getting the funds to do the work in a timely manner.”4 Yet, PG&E takes the money but fails to correct the problems.
46. Further, according to records maintained by Cal Fire, forty-four (44) fires in Butte County were caused by electrical equipment from 2008 through 2016.5 In 2015, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 acres across California – more than twice the amount from any other47.cause.6According to the 2017 CPUC “Order Instituting Investigation into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit”: “Poorly maintained poles and attachments have caused substantial property damage and repeated loss of life in this State. For example, inadequate clearance between communication and power lines, perhaps in conjunction with a broken cable lashing wire, caused the Southern California Guejito Fire of 2007 which (together with the Witch Fire) burned 197,990 acres and caused two deaths. Three more deaths occurred in 2011 when an electrical conductor separated from a pole in high winds, causing a live wire to fall to the ground. At least five more people lost their lives in pole-related failures in 2012 and 2015.
“Unauthorized pole attachments are particularly problematic. A pole overloaded with unauthorized equipment collapsed during windy conditions and started the Malibu Canyon Fire of 2007, destroying and damaging luxury homes and burning over 4500 acres. Windstorms in 2011 knocked down a large number of poles in Southern California, many of which were later found to be weakened by termites, dry rot, and fungal “Communicationdecay. and other wires are not infrequently found hanging onto roads or yards. Poles with excessive and/or unauthorized attachments can put utility workers at risk. Facilities deployed in the field may differ from what appears on paper or in a utility’s database.”7 3 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Safety/EA2014-023.pdf 4 Sonoma-Santa-Rosa-451996923.htmlhttps://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/State-Audit-Shows-PGE-Had-Repair-Job-Backlog-in-5http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_fire_info_redbooks6http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-utility-wildfires-20171017-story.html7http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M190/K872/190872933.pdf 23. While the Camp Fire was uncontrolled for much of its burn, the 3,400 maintenance requests prove that these forests were under the control and regulation of PG&E, and that failure was not an unexpected result.
50. PG&E has a well-documented history of implementing this “run to failure” approach with its aging infrastructure, ignoring necessary maintenance in order to line its own pockets with excessive profits. According to a filing by Office of Ratepayer Advocates with the CPUC in May 2013: “However, as we saw in Section V.F.3 above, the Overland Audit explains how PG&E systematically underfunded GT&S integrity management and maintenance operations for the years 2008 through 2010. PG&E engaged in a ‘run to failure’ strategy whereby it deferred needed maintenance projects and changed the assessment method for several pipelines from ILI to the less informative ECDA approach – all to increase its profits even further beyond its already generous authorized rate of return, which averaged 11.2% between 1996 and 2010.
48. PG&E’s failure to conduct proper and regular inspections of its equipment and failure to make necessary repairs contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire.
COMPLAINT-15-
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
“Given PG&E’s excessive profits over the period of the Overland Audit, there is no reason to believe that Overland’s example regarding GT&S operations between 2008 and 2010 was unique. The IRP Report supplements the Overland Audit findings with additional examples of PG&E management’s commitment to profits over safety. Thus, it is evident that while the example of GT&S underfunding between 2008 and 2010 might be extreme, it was not an isolated incident; rather, it represents the culmination of PG&E management’s long standing policy to squeeze every nickel it could from PG&E gas operations and maintenance, regardless of the long term ‘run to failure’ impacts. And PG&E has offered no evidence to the contrary.”8 51. PG&E’s failure to address this “run to failure” approach to maintenance contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire. 8 ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/20 0039691.pdf 24. If wildness is to be off of an expected course, than fires started by PG&E are certainly not wild. Their “run-to-failure” approach to maintenance expects a failure. Perhaps the wildness comes from the unexpected, unregulated scale of failure—a power line, a forest, a town.
13/03/SB_GT&S_
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.23 24
4. PG&E’s “Run to Failure” Approach to Maintenance
49. PG&E’s failure to address the “significant safety hazards” identified by the 2013 Liberty Report, failure to treat the conditions of its aging infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk, failure to inspect, maintain, repair or replace its aging equipment, failure to conduct an inventory of its electrical assets, and failure to ensure its infrastructure could withstand foreseeable weather conditions as required by law are all indicative of what has been called PG&E’s “run to failure” approach to its infrastructure.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
52. Under Insurance Code § 533 provides in pertinent part: “An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured . . . .”
D. PG&E’S CORPORATE CULTURE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CAMP FIRE
53. Civil Code § 1668 provides: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”
54. Despite the statutory exoneration given to insurance companies for liability for losses caused by willful acts of an insured, and despite the fact that the public policy of the State of California invalidates any insurance contract that purports to provide coverage for punitive damages, PG&E has purchased policies of insurance from offshore companies in Bermuda, London, and elsewhere that expressly provide coverage for punitive damages in amounts that exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.24
COMPLAINT-165. PG&E’s Purchase of Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages
55. PG&E purchased insurance policies that cover punitive damages for the purpose of providing corporate security at the cost of public safety. This contributed to a culture of reckless disregard for the safety of the residents of Northern and Central California and contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire.
56. PG&E is a virtual monopoly in the provision of gas and electric services to the general public in almost all counties and cities across Northern and Central California.9
57. Over the past thirty-plus years, PG&E has been subject to numerous fines, penalties, and/or convictions as a result of its failure to abide by safety rules and regulations, including the fines, penalties, settlements, and convictions detailed above. Despite these recurring punishments, PG&E continues to display a shocking degree of arrogant complacency, refuses to modify its behavior, and continues to conduct its business with a conscious disregard forꞏ the safety of the public, including Plaintiffs.9Afewcities like Palo Alto and Sacramento provide their own gas and electric utility services.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May
Tammy Waller, a Magalia resident, looks at power lines running perilously close to dense trees and brush in her neighborhood. Waller says it’s unbelievable that even after the deadliest wildfire in California history was ignited by PG&E’s faulty equipment, there are still power lines in this condition where she lives. Photo courtesy of Kirk Siegler/NPR.25
COMPLAINT-17-
58. Rather than spend the money it obtains from customers for infrastructure maintenance and safety, PG&E funnels this funding to boost its own corporate profits and compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring profits over having a solid and well-maintained infrastructure that would be safe and dependable for years to come left PG&E vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the Camp Fire.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
59. For example, according to documents released by The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”), PG&E planned to replace a segment of the San Bruno pipeline in 2007 that it identified as one of the riskiest pipelines in PG&E’s system. PG&E collected $5 million from its customers to complete the project by 2009, but instead deferred the project until it was too late and repurposed the money to other priorities. That same year, PG&E spent nearly $5 million on bonuses for six of its top executives.60.
Moreover, PG&E has implemented multiple programs that provide monetary incentives to its employees, agents, and/or contractors to not protect public safety. Prior to the Butte Fire, PG&E chose to provide a monetary incentive to its contractors to cut fewer trees, even though PG&E was required to have an inspection program in place that removed dangerous trees and reduced the risk of wildfires. Robert Urban, a regional officer for a PG&E contractor, stated that he had a concern that the bonus system incentivized his employees to not do their job, but PG&E chose to keep this program despite knowing this risk. Similarly, prior to the San Bruno explosion, PG&E had a program that provided financial incentives to employees to not report or fix gas leaks and keep repair costs down. This program resulted in the failure to detect a significant number of gas leaks, many of which were considered serious leaks. According to Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert, PG&E’s incentive system was “training and rewarding people to do the wrong thing,” emblematic of “a seriously broken process,” and “explains many of the systemic problems in this operation that contributed to the [San Bruno] tragedy.”10 61. As detailed above, the Camp Fire just one example of the many tragedies that have resulted from PG&E’s enduring failure to protect the public from the dangers associated with its 10 2424430.phphttp://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-incentive-system-blamed-for-leak-oversights2022.25
www.norcalfirelawyers.com 26 Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.26 26. California Public
66. On the days leading up to the Camp Fire, PG&E began notifying 70,000 customers of the “potential that the company would turn off power for safety reasons given forecasts of extreme fire danger conditions.” Despite its own recognition of these impending hazardous conditions, on the day of the Camp Fire’s ignition, PG&E ultimately made the decision not to proceed with its plans for Utilities Commission Orders 95 and 165 pertain to the construction and inspection of infrastructure: General Order Number 95: Overhead electric line construction; General Order Number 165: Inspection cycles for electric distribution facilities. CPUC27
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
65. PG&E owes the public a non-delegable duty with regard to the operation of its power lines, including as it relates to maintenance, inspection, repair and all other obligations imposed by the Public Utilities Code and the CPUC, specifically including, but not limited to, General Orders Numbers 95 and 165. Even when PG&E chooses to hire contractors, its obligations remain nondelegable. PG&E’s acts and omissions, as described herein, were a cause of the Camp Fire and/or aggravated the spread and destruction of the Camp Fire.
COMPLAINT-18operations. PG&E power lines, transformers, conductors, poles, insulators, and/or other electrical equipment have repeatedly started wildfires due to PG&E’s ongoing failure to create, manage, implement, and/or maintain effective vegetation management programs for the areas near and around its electrical equipment. Further, PG&E’s aging infrastructure has caused multiple disasters throughout California.
64. As detailed more fully above, repeatedly fails to inspect, maintain, repair, or replace its equipment. These failures also contributed to both the Butte and North Bay Fires, yet PG&E continues to deny liability for those fires and even claims that it did nothing wrong.
General
From
62. Beginning early in the morning on or about November 8, 2018, the Camp Fire began raging in the town of Paradise. These fires quickly ripped through neighborhoods, destroying everything in their path, including residences, structures, businesses, trees, and vegetation in Butte County.63. The Camp Fire is the most destructive fire in California’s history, surpassing the damage caused by the Tubbs Fire, one of the North Bay Fires. In just a matter of days, the fire caused the deaths of at least 42 people, displaced about 150,000 people who were forced to leave their homes and search for safety, burned over 117,000 acres, and destroyed at least 7,102 homes and buildings.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.27 30. Central Paradise Maps28 May November2018 2018 May CalFire2021Homes Destroyed29 30
69. The devastating Camp Fire is the most destructive individual wildfire in California history to date. CalFire reported that the Camp Fire started on November 8, 2018 at 6:29 a.m. at Pulga Road and Camp Creek Road near the Jarbo Gap.13
67. At all times relevant to this action PG&E had specific knowledge that wildfire is the greatest risk to the public from its operations. PG&E specifically knew that wildfire could result in death and injury to members of the public and could result in the destruction of structures and property.
E. THE CAMP FIRE
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
70. On November 7, 2018, PG&E emailed the owner of property in Pulga in the area of origin of the Camp Fire and informed the owner they were “having problems with sparks” from their transmission lines and needed to inspect a transmission tower. Even though PG&E’s employees had visited the property on November 7, they did nothing to fix the cause of the sparks.14
COMPLAINT-19a power shutoff.11 It was not until November 9, 2018, after the Camp Fire already incinerated the town of Paradise, that PG&E turned off power to some of its customers.12
72. The following photograph shows PG&E’s transmission pole and lines near the origin of the Camp Fire: 141312_to_not_proceed_with_public_safet11https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20181108_pge_determinesy_power_shutoff_planned_for_portions_of_eight_northern_california_countieshttps://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20181109_pge_mobilizes_response_to_camp_fire_impacts_in_butte_and_plumas_countieshttp://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/admin8327985/cdf/images/incidentfile2277_4198.pdfhttps://www.foxnews.com/us/utility-contacted-woman-about-power-line-problems-day-before-deadly-wildfire
68. PG&E chose to accept and continue implementing its current practices that have resulted in significant safety issues in its transmission system, a failure to treat the conditions of its aging electrical assets and a failure to inspect, maintain, repair and replace. PG&E’s choice resulted numerous deaths, injuries, and damage to structures and property, just as PG&E knew it could, when they made the choice.
71. Radio transmissions from first responders indicated the origin of the fire to be underneath the vicinity of high voltage transmission lines, across the Feather River from Poe Dam. Defendants’ transmission line failed and ignited the Camp Fire.
75. Other residents who did manage to escape the flames alive did so at a moment’s notice without any of their belongings, and some did so while desperately clutching to their young children as their surrounding town became engulfed in raging flames.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.28 Smoke
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
COMPLAINT-20-
74. Thousands of residents were displaced by the Camp Fire, forced to flee as the fire grew and spread rapidly. Several of the deaths resulting from the Camp Fire were of individuals fleeing in their cars who in the process of their harrowing escapes were overtaken by the speed of the flames that ultimately consumed them, leaving their charred corpses behind. These individuals cannot yet be identified due to the conditions of their scorched remains.
73. PG&E reported that on November 8, 2018, at approximately 6:15 a.m., they experienced an outage of the Caribou-Palermo 115 kV Transmission line located in Butte County. Later that day, a transmission tower, approximately one-mile north-east of Pulga, was reportedly observed to be damaged.15
15 of-Camp-Fire--500182111.htmlhttps://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/news/PGE-Releases-Statement-About-Possible-Causeblankets California forests just days after the Camp Fire. Photo courtesy of Trevor Hughes/ USA Today Network31
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
78. On November 8, 2018, Plaintiffs were owners of real property and/or personal property located within Butte County in the area of the Camp Fire.
81. The above described damage to Plaintiffs’ property was legally and substantially caused by Defendants’ actions in their installation, ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance of the power lines and other electrical equipment for a public use.
82. Plaintiffs have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or destruction of their property, thus constituting a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs’ property by Defendants without just compensation.
83. As a direct and legal result of the actions and/or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages to their real and/or personal property, including the loss of use, interference with access, and/or diminution in value and/or marketability in an amount according to proof at trial.
84. As a direct and legal result of the actions and/or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs, disbursements, and/or expenses, including reasonable www.norcalfirelawyers.com
COMPLAINT-21CAUSES OF ACTION A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AGAINST PG&E
80. On November 8, 2018, as a direct, necessary, and legal result of Defendants’ installation, ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance for a public use of its power lines and/or other electrical equipment, the power lines and/or other electrical equipment came in contact with vegetation and/or other live conductors, and/or broke, failed, fell down, sparked, and/or exploded, causing the Camp Fire that killed 42 people and burned 117,000 acres, including property owned and/or occupied by Plaintiffs.
76. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.77. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Inverse Condemnation against PG&E.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.29
79. Prior to and on November 8, 2018, Defendants, and/or each of them, installed, owned, operated, used, controlled, and/or maintained power lines and other electrical equipment for the public delivery of electricity, including power lines in and around the location of the Camp Fire.
V.
COMPLAINT-22attorney, appraisal, engineering and/or other expert fees due to the conduct of the Defendants in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained, but which are recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1036.
B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
85. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
88. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs were injured in their health, strength, and/or activity in an amount according to proof at trial.
86. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for negligence against all Defendants.
87. The Camp Fire was a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or unlawfulness of Defendants, and/or each of them. Defendants, and/or each of them, breached their respective duties owed individually and/or collectively to Plaintiffs by, including but not limited to: (1) failing to comply with the applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or professional standards of care; (2) failing to timely and properly maintain, manage, inspect, and/or monitor the subject power lines, electrical equipment, and/or adjacent vegetation; (3) failing to make the overhead lines safe under all the exigencies created by surrounding circumstances and conditions; (4) failing to conduct adequate, reasonably prompt, proper, effective, and/or frequent inspections of the electrical transmission lines, wires, and/or associated equipment; (5) failing to design, construct, monitor, and/or maintain high voltage electrical transmission, and/or distribution power lines in a manner that avoids the potential to ignite a fire during long, dry seasons; (6) failing to install the equipment necessary and/or to inspect and repair the equipment installed, to prevent electrical transmission and distribution lines from improperly sagging, operating, and/or making contact with other metal wires placed on its poles and igniting fires; (7) failing to keep equipment in a safe condition and/or manage equipment to prevent fire at all times; (8) failing to de-energize power lines during fire prone conditions; (9) failing to de-energize power lines after the fire’s ignition; and/or (10) failing to properly train and to supervise employees and agents responsible for maintenance and inspection of the transmission lines and/or vegetation areas nearby these lines.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.30
93. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to and/or a loss of personal property, including but not limited to items of peculiar value to Plaintiffs in an amount according to proof at trial.
91. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of income, loss of earning capacity, loss of profits, increased expenses due to displacement, and/or other consequential economic losses in an amount according to proof at trial.
Photo courtesy of Noah Berger/ Associated Press33
COMPLAINT-23-
92. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to real property, including the loss of vegetation, trees, and structures, the creation of hydrophobic soil conditions, and a loss of use, benefit, goodwill, diminution in value, and/or enjoyment of such property in an amount according to proof at trial.
94. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants’ actions and/or omissions s, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses and other economic damages related to the damage to their property, including costs relating to storage, clean-up, disposal, repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of their property, and/or other related consequential damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
89. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs were required to and/or continue to employ physicians and other healthcare providers to examine, treat, and/or care for their injuries. Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman,
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
31
90. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and/or continue to suffer great mental pain and suffering, including worry, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, anxiety, and nervousness. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that such injuries have resulted in debilitating injuries in an amount according to proof at trial.
95. As detailed in above, Defendants’ safety record is inexcusably horrendous. Defendants have had several other incidents that caused injury and death to California residents, and destroyed properties, and has been subject to numerous penalties, including, but not limited to record fines Natalie. May 2022. 32 32. The distinction of real and personal property is an important and expected part of the suit. When analyzing scales of maintenance, and therefor scales of destruction or failure, it is important to note that the scale of the town or neighborhood, damages to property is not addressed. The real and personal in-between property that gets destroyed in a fire— streets, corner parks, stoop interactions, memories, and views— are left out of the damages claims. Though they are harder to quantify, they are are an invaluable part of property value and the built Mobile Home Park retirement community was leveled by the Camp Fire.
Theenvironment.Ridgewood
96. The Camp Fire was the result of Defendants’ continued practice of prioritizing profits over safety, wherein they failed to properly maintain and inspect their power lines knowing that the likely result was a fire that would pose risk of serious injury and/or death, and damage to property.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
98. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages for injuries to Plaintiffs’ animals as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 3340.
C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE § 2106
99. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. www.norcalfirelawyers.com
COMPLAINT-24following the San Bruno Explosion, as a result of their failure to comply with safety standards, rules and regulations. Despite these fines and punishments, Defendants failed to modify their behavior, continuing their practice of placing their own profits over safety and conducting their business with a conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of the public and property.
97. At all times prior to the subject incident, the conduct of Defendants, by act and/or omission, demonstrated a wanton and/or reckless indifference for the required maintenance of Defendants’ electrical infrastructure, as well as a conscious disregard for and a foreseeable risk of serious injury and death of others. The wrongful conduct of Defendants was more than just inadvertence, error of judgment or negligence. Rather, Defendants conduct was despicable and showed malice as defined by Civil Code § 3294. The state has an extremely strong interest in imposing sufficiently high punitive damages in actions where the malicious conduct of Defendants leads to the wrongful death of one of its citizens. As a result, Plaintiffs request that the trier of fact, in the exercise of sound discretion of the rights and safety of others, such that additional damages for the sake of example and sufficient to punish said Defendants for their despicable conduct, in an amount reasonably related to Plaintiffs’ actual damages and Defendants’ wealth, yet sufficiently large enough to be an example to others and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.32
102. Defendants at all times herein had a duty to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect, and manage its electrical infrastructure in compliance with all relevant provisions of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.2; (b) General Ord er No. 165; (c) Code of Civil Procedure § 733; (d) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code § 451.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
100. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for violations of the Constitution, the laws of California, and/or orders and decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission against all Defendants.101. This private right of action is authorized by Public Utilities Code § 2106, which permits action by a person or entity who have suffered loss, damages, or injury caused by the acts of a public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the commission.
104. Defendants violated the above listed requirements, by: a. Failing to service, inspect or maintain electrical infrastructure, structures and vegetation affixed to and in close proximity to high voltage electrical lines; b. Failing to provide electrical supply systems of suitable design; c. Failing to construct and to maintain such systems for their intended use of safe transmission of electricity considering the known condition of the combination of the dry season and vegetation of the area, resulting in Plaintiff(s) being susceptible to the ignition and spread of fire and the fire hazard and danger of electricity and electrical transmission and distribution; d. Failing to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect and manage its electrical supply systems and the surrounding arid vegetation resulting in said vegetation igniting and accelerating the spread of the fire; www.norcalfirelawyers.com
Executive Director of the council, Calli-Jane DeAnda said that the thinning work “did exactly what we hoped it would do…This investment of public money is so worth the effort.” The council had secured $1 million in grants to remove fuels from forested areas and shows the collaboration needed between public and private agencies to do the necessary work.35 36
103. The violation of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which defines a minimum standard of conduct is unreasonable per se.
COMPLAINT-25-
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.33 36. Fires are a natural part of forest maintenance and ecosystems. In the same way this case helps to debunk “wild” it is crucial to recover fire from the fear that envelopes it now. Low intensity fires help clean the forest floor, removing debris that spread large fires when unmaintained. In addition to removing what becomes kindling for larger fires, the removal of brush allows trees to grow larger and taller as they don’t have to compete with smaller plants. Removing heavy brush through controlled burns also opens up stronger waterflow and more space for wildlife and other species to thrive in the forests. In addition to fire as maintenance, major budget cuts to public forestry services has put the responsibility of maintenance in a state of precarity. Due to extreme, and valid, concerns from conservationists in the 1980s forestry was seen as harmful and the pressure to cut funds from a seemingly destructive agency mounted. What was not communicated was all the work the forestry departments do for forests beyond cut timber. In addition to public perception, forestry budgets are historically linked to timber output,34 meaning, when we decrease timber output in the name of conservation, budgets follow, and forests become crowded with debris overtime. In this sense, preservation measures can actively put forests at risk when not looked at holistically. The Camp Fire provides clear evidence for the importance of thinning forests and bolstering budgets for maintenance. The Denver Post writes that “A thinned forest northeast of Paradise provided one of the rare victories of the Camp Fire. As the fire raged out of the tiny community of Pulga, it essentially spared the northern part of Magalia. The reason was a series of forestthinning projects conducted in recent years and overseen by the U.S. Forest Service, Sierra Pacific Industries and the volunteer Butte County Fire Safe Council. The council also worked diligently with area residents to clear brush from their property.”
105. Defendants proximately and substantially caused the destruction, damage, and injury to Plaintiffs by their violations of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.2, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.144.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code of Civil Procedure § 733; (d) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code § 451.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
COMPLAINT-26e. Failing to properly safeguard against the ignition of fire during the course and scope of employee work on behalf of DEFENDANTS; and f. Failing to comply with the enumerated legislative enactments and administrative regulations.
D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
109. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
108. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above.
106. Plaintiffs were and are within the class of persons for whose protection applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.2, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165(c) Code of Civil Procedure § 733; (d) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code § 451.
110. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Premises Liability against all Defendants. www.norcalfirelawyers.com May 2022.34
Boverman, Natalie.
107. As alleged herein according to proof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for all loss, damages and injury caused by and resulting from Defendants’ violation of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.2, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code of Civil Procedure § 733; (d) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code § 451.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
116. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
COMPLAINT-27-
E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
115. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
119. Defendants, and/or each of them, in wrongfully acting and/or failing to act in the manner set forth above, caused the Camp Fire to ignite and/or spread out of control, causing harm, damage, and/or injury to Plaintiffs herein, resulting in a trespass upon Plaintiffs’ property interests.
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.35
112. Defendants, and/or each of them, acted wantonly, unlawfully, carelessly, recklessly, and/or negligently in failing to properly inspect, manage, maintain, and/or control the vegetation near its power lines along the real property and easement, allowing an unsafe condition presenting a foreseeable risk of fire danger to exist on said property.
117. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Trespass against all Defendants.
111. Defendants, and/or each of them, were the owners of an easement and/or real property in the area of origin of the Camp Fire, and/or were the owners of the power lines upon said easement and/or right of way.
113. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries and damages as set forth114.above.As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above.
120. Plaintiffs did not grant permission for Defendants to wrongfully act in manner so as to cause the Camp Fire, and thereby produce a wildland fire which spread and wrongfully entered upon their property, resulting in the harm, injury, and/or damage alleged above. www.norcalfirelawyers.com 37 37. The claim for trespassing is perhaps the most poignant and specific to the fire. This is because it ascribes a movement and animation to the fire itself. Here, the Defendants are said to be responsible for the ignition of the fire, resulting in a trespass upon the Plaintiff’s property. This directly suggests that the fire itself is doing the trespassing. This part of the case then is perhaps the most wild, for it is actually the fire doing the work.
118. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were the owners, tenants, and/or lawful occupants of property damaged by the Camp Fire.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
125. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries and damages as set forth above.
126. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above.
122. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs, whose land was under cultivation, and/or was used for raising livestock or was intended to be used for raising livestock, have hired and retained counsel to recover compensation for loss and damage and are entitled to recover all attorney’s fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses, as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9.
123. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek treble damages for injuries to trees or timber on Plaintiffs’ property as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 733.
124. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek double and/or treble damages for the negligent, willful, and wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under Civil Code § 3346.
121. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, which led to the trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages as set forth above, in an amount according to proof at trial.
128. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Public Nuisance against all Defendants.
Boverman, Natalie.
COMPLAINT-28-
F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
127. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
129. Plaintiffs own and/or occupy property at or near the site of the fire that is the subject of this action. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs had a right to occupy, enjoy, and/or use their property without interference by Defendants, and/or each of them. www.norcalfirelawyers.com May 2022.36 38 38. Similar to ascribing the trespassing to the fire itself, this clause ascribes the damage to the trees themselves. Here the importance of the actual wild is brought to the case. While the State of California has sued for damages to state forests (the scale of the forest) and resources needed to fight the fires (at the scale of infrastructure), here we see the forest at the scale of the home.
37 39
COMPLAINT-29-
132. Plaintiffs did not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, in acting in the manner set forth above.
40. California Civil Code 3480: “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal”41 The California Civil Code 3480 directly addresses the public, or communal, aspect of the nuisance in a way the cause of action for negligence failed to.
40
133. The hazardous condition which was created by and/or permitted to exist by Defendants, and/or each of them, affected a substantial number of people within the general public, including Plaintiffs herein, and constituted a public nuisance under Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and Public Resources Code § 4171. Further, the ensuing uncontrolled wildfire constituted a public nuisance under Public Resources Code § 4170.
135. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs suffered harm that is different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost the occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their land, real and/or personal property, including, but not limited to: a reasonable and rational fear that the area is still dangerous; a diminution in the fair market value of their property; an impairment of the salability of their property; soils that have become hydrophobic; exposure to an array of toxic substances on their land; the www.norcalfirelawyers.com 42 Boverman, Natalie. May 2022. 39. The cause of action for public nuisance is not unusual when it comes to the violation of property rights. What makes this a unique claim is the harmful conditions produced by the fire. Not only does the fire prohibit the right to enjoyment by nature of obstruction, it also causes a hazardous and harmful condition.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
42. The unique part of hazard in the case of the fire is the “ongoing” changes to the soil structure, air quality, and not-yet observed tree damage. Tied to forest management, both PG&E as a utility and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, forests operate at a different time-scale than even most high level infrastructure. Soil for example undergoes immediate transformation under high-intensity fire as the flames and smoke kill microorganisms and sterilize the soil. Over time, however, the reduced porosity and altered structure of large swaths of soil make forests and other wild areas susceptible to decreased water infiltration rates, water storage capacity, accelerated run off and erosion which all lead to increased sedimentation and negative impacts water supply and reservoir storage.43
131. Defendants and/or each of them, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged hereinabove, created a condition that was harmful to the health of the public, including these Plaintiffs and that interfered with the comfortable occupancy, use, and/or enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ property.
130. Defendants, and/or each of them, owed a duty to the public, including Plaintiffs herein, to conduct their business, in particular the maintenance and/or operation of power lines, power poles, and/or electrical equipment on power poles, and adjacent vegetation in proximity to their power lines in Butte County in a manner that did not threaten harm or injury to the public welfare from operation of those power lines.
134. The damaging effects of Defendants’ maintenance of a fire hazard and the ensuing uncontrolled wildfire are ongoing and affect the public at large. As a result of the fire’s location, temperature, and/or duration, extensive areas of hydrophobic soils developed within the fire’s perimeter. This further caused significant post fire runoff hazards to occur, including hillside erosion, debris flow hazards, and sediment laden flow hazards. As a result, large quantities of ash and sediment will be deposited in perennial and ephemeral watercourses.
140. The conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code §§4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action for public nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs because, as more specifically described above, it is injurious and/or offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs, unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of their properties, and/or www.norcalfirelawyers.com 2022. A home is consumed in flames in Paradise on the night of November 8th, 2018. Photo courtesy of Noah Berger/Associated Press44
137. The individual and/or collective conduct of Defendants set forth above, and/or each of them, resulting in the Camp Fire is not an isolated incident, but is ongoing and/or a repeated course of conduct, and Defendants’ prior conduct and/or failures have resulted in other fires and damage to the public.
138. The unreasonable conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury, and/or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs herein.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
136. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worries, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to the interference with Plaintiffs’ occupancy, possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property, as alleged above. A reasonable, ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the condition created by Defendants, and/or each of them, and the resulting fire. The conduct of Defendants and/or each of them, is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public, including Plaintiffs herein, outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct.
Boverman, Natalie. May
38
COMPLAINT-30presence of “special waste” on their property that requires special management and disposal; and a lingering smell of smoke, and/or constant soot, ash, and/or dust in the air.
139. Defendants, and/or each of them, have individually and/or collectively, failed and refused to conduct proper inspections and to properly trim, prune, and/or cut vegetation in order to ensure the sole delivery of electricity to residents through the operation of power lines in the affected area, and Defendants’ individual and/or collective failure to do so exposed every member of the public, including those residing and/or owning property in Butte County, to a foreseeable danger of personal injury, death, and/or a loss of or destruction real and personal property.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.39
141. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering that Defendants, and each of them, stop continued violation of: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (d) Public Utilities Code § 451. Plaintiffs also seek an order directing Defendants to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above.
142. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
143. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
146. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer loss and damage to property, discomfort, annoyance and emotional distress, and the injuries and damages as set forth above.
145. Defendants, and/or each of them, by their acts and/or omissions set forth above, directly and legally caused an obstruction to the free use of Plaintiffs’ property, an invasion the Plaintiffs’ right to use their property, and/or an interference with the enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ property, resulting in Plaintiffs’ suffering unreasonable harm and substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3481.
COMPLAINT-31unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner, of Plaintiffs’ properties, and have suffered harm, injury, and damages.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
147. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above.
144. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Private Nuisance against all Defendants.
G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT-32H. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 13007 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
153. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and/or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above.
154. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: For the Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation: a. Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; b. Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs’ real and/or personal property; www.norcalfirelawyers.com
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.40
151. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007, Plaintiffs suffered property damages that are recoverable from Defendants under Health & Safety Code § 13007.21, and continue to suffer the injuries and damages described above.
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
VI. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL
152. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants’ violations of Health & Safety Code § 13007, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9.
148. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.
149. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for violations of Health & Safety Code § 13007 against all 150.Defendants.Defendants, and/or each of them, by their acts and/or omissions described above, set fire to and/or allowed fire to be set to the property of another in violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007.
COMPLAINT-33-
d. All costs of suit including attorney’s fees, expert fees, and related costs; e. Any and all relief, compensation, or measure of damages available to Plaintiffs by law based on the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs; f. For prejudgment interest; g. For all costs of suit incurred herein; and h. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.41
c. Loss of wages, earning capacity and/or business profits and/or any related displacement expenses;
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
For the Causes of Action for: Negligence; Private Right of Action under Public Utilities Code § 2106; Premises Liability; Trespass; Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; and Violations of Health & Safety Code § 13007: a. Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; b. Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs’ real and/or personal property; c. Loss of wages, earning capacity and/or business profits and/or any related displacement expenses; d. For general damages in an amount according to proof; e. For special damages in an amount according to proof; f. For treble damages in an amount according to proof for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 733; g. For treble or double damages in an amount according to proof for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood, as allowed under Civil Code § 3346; h. For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 3294; i. For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 3340; j. For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Public
28272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321 COMPLAINT-34Utilities Code § 2106; k. For attorney’s fees, expert fees, consultant fees and litigation costs and expenses as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9; l. For prejudgment interest; m. For all costs of suit incurred herein; and n. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: November 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI & RIDDLE LLP By: Dario de Ghetaldi Amanda L. Riddle Steven AttorneysSumbleBerkiManzoorforPlaintiffs DANKO MEREDITH Michael S. Danko Kristine K. Meredith Shawn R. Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gibbs Law Group Eric AttorneysDylanGibbsHughesforPlaintiffs www.norcalfirelawyers.com Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.42
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.43
The non-wildness of wildfires. Debunking “wild”fires through their infrastructural and built systems of maintenance.
1. living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated 2. not inhabited or cultivated “wild” noun 1. a sparsely inhabited or uncultivated region or tract 2. a wild, free, or natural state or existence “wild” adverb 1. without regulation or control 2. off an intended or expected course PG&E have control over their infrastructure design and maintenance. PG&E expected drier, hotter climates and operate on a run-to-failure method. These regions have been cultivated by power infrastructure. These regions are no longer in a free or natural state. These forests have been domesticated through forestry and power industries. These forests have been both inhabited and cultivated.
“wild” adjective
10.
6. Pacific Gas and Electric Company “PG&E Corporation 2021 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Earnings.” PG&E Corporation, February 10, 2022. https://www.pgecorp.com/news/pdf/2021Q4EarningsSlides.pdf.
34.
13.
30.
27.
14.
7. Internal reference, page 6. 8. Internal reference, page 9. 9. Krishnakumar, Priya, and Jon Schleuss. “More than 18,000 Buildings Burned in Northern California. Here’s What That Looks like from Above.” www.latimes.com. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-camp-fire-building-destruction-map/. The Associated Press. “Which Houses Survived Wildfire? Often, Those Built to Code.” The Denver Post (blog), April 13, 2019. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/13/wildfire-burned-home-california/. Arthur, Damon. “Study of 2018 Camp Fire Looks at Why Wildfires Burn Some Homes and Spare Others.” News. Redding Record Searchlight, October 26, 2021. https://www.redding.com/story/news/2021/10/26/study-why-california-wildfires-burn-some-homes-spare-others/8429224002/. Valachovic, Yana. “What Can We Learn from the 14,000 Homes Lost during the Camp Fire?” Green Blog, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=29026. The Associated Press. “Which Houses Survived” The Associated Press. “Which Houses Survived” The Associated Press. “Which Houses Survived” Arthur, Damon. “Study of 2018 Camp Fire” Internal reference, page 15. Internal reference, page 15. Internal reference, page 15. Internal reference, page 16. Internal reference, page 17. 22. Swindell, Bill. “North Bay Fires Reach $9 Billion in Insured Losses.” News. Santa Rosa Press Democrat, December 6, 2017. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/business/north-bay-fires-reach-9-billion-in-insured-losses/. Internal reference, page 22. Internal reference, page 23. Siegler, Kirk. “The Camp Fire Destroyed 11,000 Homes. A Year Later Only 11 Have Been Rebuilt.” NPR, November 9, 2019, sec. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/777801169/the-camp-fire-destroyed-11-000-homes-a-year-later-only-11-have-been-rebuilt.National. Internal reference, page 26. State of California. “California Public Utilities Commission General Orders.” Government. Public Utilities Commission State of California. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Home/Proceedings-and-Rulemaking/CPUC-general-orders. Google Earth. “Paradise California” Accessed May 3, 2022. Cal Fire. “Camp Fire Structure Status”[map] Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 6.1117%2C102100https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5306cc8cf38c4252830a38d467d33728&extent=-13547810.5486%2C4824920.1673%2C-13518764.4778%2C484152 Internal reference, page 27. Sergent, Jim, George Petras, Karl Gelles, and John Bacon. “3 Startling Facts about California’s Camp Fire.” USA Today. USA Today, November 21, 2018. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/20/camp-fire-3-startling-facts/2064758002/. Internal reference, page 31. Arthur, Damon. “Study of 2018 Camp Fire” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. “Northwest Forest Plan, the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of the Olympic National Forest and Three Local Communities.” USDA, January 2006. The Associated Press. “Which Houses Survived” reference, page 33. reference, page 35. reference, page 36. Internal reference, page 37. Internal reference, page 37. State of California. “California Law, Code Section, Civil Code.” Government. California Legislative Information. State of California. Accessed May 2, 2022. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=3480. reference, page 37. Fire Safe Sonoma. “How Does Wildfire Impact Soil Health?” Fire Safe Sonoma (blog), December 17, 2020. https://www.firesafesonoma.org/how-does-wildfire-impact-soil-health/. Arthur, Damon. “Study of 2018 Camp Fire”
23.
2. Internal reference, page 4. 3. University of Colorado at Boulder. “Humans Sparked”
21.
15.
29.
17.
37. Internal
4. Internal reference, page 5. 5. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. “PG&E.” PG&E, n.d. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.
32.
36. Internal
43.
44.
35.
42. Internal
Boverman, Natalie. May 2022.44 Notes 1. University of Colorado at Boulder. “Humans Sparked 84 Percent of US Wildfires, Increased Fire Season over Two Decades.” Phys Org. Science X Network, February 27, 2017. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-humans-percent-wildfires-season-decades.html.
16.
19.
38. Internal
28.
26.
40.
12.
18.
33.
39.
11.
41.
20.
25.
24.
31.