No Fees Unless We Win
(310) 207-3233
Menu

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has been linked to some of the most catastrophic wildfires in Northern California’s history, causing devastating losses of property, injury, and death. The failures and negligence of PG&E's equipment have resulted in billions of dollars in damages and profound impacts on communities. This page is designed to help wildfire victims understand how lawsuits against PG&E work, guiding them through the process of seeking compensation for the losses they have suffered.

At Wisner Baum, we help families navigate the necessary steps to hold PG&E accountable for its role in these disasters. We provide legal support to help people navigate insurance claims and ensure that victims receive the compensation needed to rebuild and recover after wildfire events caused by PG&E’s negligence and equipment failures. 

If you or your loved ones have been affected by a PG&E wildfire, this page will explain your rights and how we can assist in securing justice on your behalf.

PG&E Lawsuit Updates – 2025

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is not currently engaged in active wildfire litigation in 2025 related to California's devastating wildfires. However, the company remains under continued scrutiny for alleged past negligence related to electrical equipment failures and poor mismanagement that contributed to historic fires. Recent legal and regulatory developments reflect ongoing efforts by victims and public entities to secure compensation through established settlement processes and trusts, while public attention remains focused on PG&E’s accountability measures and wildfire mitigation efforts.

Key updates for 2025 wildfire litigation involving PG&E include:

  • PG&E was liable for several major wildfires, including the 2015 Butte Fire, the 2017 North Bay Fires, the 2018 Camp Fire, the 2019 Kincade Fire, the 2020 Zogg Fire, and the 2021 Dixie Fire, with related lawsuits progressing through settlement and court processes.
  • Settlements totaling hundreds of millions have been reached recently, such as a $24 million agreement with Shasta County for damages from the Dixie Fire and a $150 million regulatory settlement tied to vegetation management failures.
  • PG&E avoided criminal charges in Shasta County but agreed to a $50 million settlement supporting local recovery and fire prevention programs, including undergrounding power lines and enhanced weather monitoring.
  • The Fire Victim Trust, established from PG&E's bankruptcy, is actively processing claims and recently increased its pro rata payments to wildfire victims to 70% as of August 2025.
  • PG&E filed revised wildfire mitigation plans through 2025, aiming to reduce future fire risks through infrastructure upgrades and vegetation management improvements mandated by regulators.

What Is the Pacific Gas and Electric Wildfire Lawsuit?

The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) wildfire lawsuit refers to legal actions against the utility company for its role in repeatedly causing devastating wildfires throughout California. Investigations and court findings have shown that PG&E’s failure to properly maintain and upgrade aging electrical equipment has led to fires that destroyed homes, businesses, and entire communities, causing immense loss and hardship for thousands of families. 

Victims if these wildfires have two primary avenues to pursue compensation: through insurance policies or lawsuits.  Victims often find themselves underinsured and rely on lawsuits like the ones filed by Wisner Baum, to receive the full number of damages needed to recover and rebuild.  

If you or a loved one has endured losses in a California wildfire linked to PG&E, contact Wisner Baum to get experienced guidance in your first steps towards compensation. 

Can PG&E Be Held Liable for Wildfires in California?

Yes. If an investigation reveals that PG&E equipment started a wildfire in California, homeowners, renters, and business owners may be eligible to pursue a PG&E lawsuit. 

When catastrophic wildfires break out in California, teams of expert investigators immediately move to determine the cause. This process starts by pinpointing the fire’s origin and closely examining the scene for telltale signs, which may include scorched equipment, burn patterns, and other forensic evidence. Agencies scrutinize not only the physical landscape but also maintenance records, eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage, and data from specialized sensors on utility infrastructure. Their goal is to uncover whether a spark originated from natural phenomena like lightning, human activity, or, notably, malfunctioning power lines or poorly maintained electrical equipment, a critical focus in areas served by utility giants like PG&E.

Investigators look for several key pieces of evidence to tie a utility company to a wildfire:

  • Physical signs such as broken, downed, or scorched power lines near the fire’s point of origin.
  • Burn patterns indicating the fire started around utility equipment.
  • Records showing missed or delayed equipment inspections or failure to trim vegetation near power lines.
  • Weather data matched against power system records to verify if safeguards (like de-energizing lines) were properly used.
  • Video footage, eyewitness reports, and sensor data capturing sparks or electrical activity as the fire began.

CAL FIRE plays a central role by investigating fire origins, determining ignition sources, and identifying any safety violations or equipment failures. Its findings often form the basis for legal proceedings against utility companies. Attorneys representing wildfire victims hire teams of technical experts to analyze critical evidence, including transmission system data, the geographic path of the blaze, and signs of equipment malfunction. These expert analyses help strengthen claims of liability and ensure that victims can seek meaningful compensation after catastrophic fire events.

California utility companies can be held liable under both negligence and inverse condemnation. Under negligence, utilities like PG&E may be found responsible if they fail to exercise reasonable care, such as neglecting to maintain equipment or manage vegetation, and this failure leads to wildfire damages. California’s doctrine of inverse condemnation goes further; utilities can be strictly liable for property damage caused by their equipment, even if they did not act negligently. 

This unique legal principle means that wildfire victims only need to show that utility-owned infrastructure started the fire to seek compensation, shifting much of the financial burden from individual property owners to the utility companies themselves.

How to File a Wildfire Claim Against PG&E

Filing a wildfire claim against Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) involves documenting your losses and pursuing legal action with the help of an attorney who specializes in utility company liability. The process begins with a free consultation and case review, where an experienced lawyer will evaluate your eligibility and help compile detailed records of property damage, personal injury, evacuation expenses, and other losses. Your attorney will then determine the best course, whether filing a claim with your insurance company, filing directly against PG&E, or joining ongoing litigation, and manage all necessary paperwork and deadlines on your behalf.

To pursue legal action and compensation for wildfire losses:

  • Gather documentation of property damage, personal injury, loss of income, and evacuation expenses.
  • Take photographs of all impacted assets and keep records of expenses related to the fire.
  • Consult with a wildfire attorney for a case review and guidance on your claim.
  • Work closely with your attorney to calculate the total value of your damages and losses.
  • Ensure all claim forms are accurate and fully capture your loss.

Major Wildfires Linked to PG&E Equipment

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) equipment has been repeatedly linked to some of the most devastating wildfires in California’s history, sparking a large number of catastrophic fires that have caused widespread destruction and loss. Investigations over recent years reveal that PG&E’s aging and poorly maintained electrical infrastructure, including power lines, transmission lines, and electrical connections, has ignited major wildfires. 

These fires have led to massive property loss, injuries, and tragic deaths, contributing to billions of dollars in damages. PG&E’s repeated equipment failures and overlooked maintenance responsibilities have made it the most frequently named utility company in wildfire lawsuits across Northern California. 

The company has since committed to safety programs like undergrounding thousands of miles of power lines to reduce wildfire risk, yet the legacy of its equipment-related fires remains central to the legal battles and compensation claims by affected victims.

Dixie Fire Lawsuit (2021)

The Dixie Fire, which ignited on July 13, 2021, was caused when a large Douglas fir tree fell across Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) distribution lines in the Feather River Canyon area in Northern California. According to CAL FIRE’s investigation finalized in January 2022, the tree made contact with energized power lines, creating an electrical fault that gradually ignited dry vegetation on the ground. Despite PG&E's line crew attempting to respond to the fault, the fire quickly spread and escalated beyond control. This initial electrical fault set off what would become the largest single-source wildfire in California history.

The fire caused immense destruction, including:

  • Burning nearly 1 million acres across Butte, Shasta, Plumas, and Tehama counties.
  • Destroying over 1,329 structures, including hundreds of homes.
  • Forcing tens of thousands of evacuations and widespread displacement.
  • Severely damaging countless businesses and community infrastructure.
  • Contributing to disastrous environmental and economic impacts in Northern California.

In January 2024, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a $45 million PG&E settlement for the utility's role in causing the Dixie Fire. The penalty included $40 million for upgrading PG&E's record-keeping systems from paper to electronic format, $2.5 million in fines to the state, and $2.5 million in payments to tribes affected by the fire. 

Camp Fire Lawsuit (2018)

On November 8, 2018, the Camp Fire erupted in Butte County, California, devastating the town of Paradise and surrounding communities. Fueled by dry conditions and strong winds, the blaze tore through nearly 153,000 acres, destroying thousands of homes and businesses and claiming 85 lives, making it the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history. In the aftermath, investigators traced the ignition source to an outdated PG&E transmission line, confirming the utility’s role in the disaster. 

As a result, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one felony count of unlawfully starting the fire, marking the first time a major utility company faced homicide charges for a wildfire.

Following the fire and legal proceedings, California enacted legislation such as the Wildfire Fund to improve utility wildfire liabilities and insurance frameworks. PG&E also established a Fire Victim Trust funded by billions in cash and equity to ensure ongoing compensation for wildfire survivors. As of August 2025, the Fire Victim Trust has paid roughly $13.7 billion to claimants who suffered losses in the Camp Fire, the 2015 Butte Fire, and the 2017 North Bay Fires. Additionally, PG&E paid an $11 billion settlement with insurance companies and other entities that paid claims related to the Camp, Butte, and North Bay Fires. Another $1 billion was committed to several cities and other public entities.

Other Wildfires Tied to PG&E Equipment

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has been linked to a recurring pattern of wildfires caused by its aging and poorly maintained electrical equipment. These fires frequently start when trees or vegetation come into contact with power lines or when faults occur in PG&E’s infrastructure, leading to devastating consequences across Northern California. 

Some other notable PG&E wildfires in California include:

  • Zogg Fire (2020): Caused when a pine tree contacted PG&E transmission lines, burning over 56,000 acres and destroying more than 200 structures.

What Compensation Can PG&E Wildfire Victims Recover?

The process for wildfire victims to pursue compensation from PG&E involves filing claims that document the losses caused by wildfires linked to the utility’s equipment. Victims can seek compensation through direct lawsuits. 

Compensation from the Trust covers a wide range of damages, and payments are issued based on the nature of the loss.  An attorney can be invaluable in helping victims prepare thorough claims, navigate filing deadlines, and maximize the compensation they receive, whether filing through the Trust or pursuing other legal avenues.

Economic damages (financial losses directly tied to the wildfire):

  • Damage to real estate, buildings, and personal property
  • Additional living expenses during evacuation or displacement
  • Lost wages and loss of business income
  • Medical expenses and rehabilitation costs for wildfire-related injuries

Non-economic damages (compensation for personal and emotional harm):

  • Emotional distress, trauma, and mental anguish
  • Pain and suffering resulting from injuries or displacement
  • Loss of enjoyment of life due to the impacts of the fire

Other forms of compensation (special categories and unique losses):

  • Funeral and burial costs in wrongful death cases
  • Community relocation support or costs tied to long-term displacement
  • Potential punitive damages in cases of proven gross negligence

An experienced wildfire attorney can help victims navigate the claims process, ensuring documentation is complete and accurately reflects the full extent of the losses. Legal guidance is crucial to maximize compensation, whether filing a claim through the Fire Victim Trust or pursuing recovery via ongoing civil litigation. 

Contact a PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit Lawyer for a Free Case Review

If you or your family have been affected by a wildfire linked to PG&E’s equipment or negligence, taking the next step toward recovery starts with knowledgeable legal support. Wisner Baum offers free, no-obligation consultations for wildfire victims, allowing you to explore your options and determine your eligibility for compensation through direct lawsuits or the PG&E Fire Victim Trust. 

Working with Wisner Baum ensures that your losses are accurately documented and pursued, and that the responsible utility companies are held accountable for the harm caused. From the initial case review to the final resolution, our team stands by your side to help secure the compensation you need to rebuild.

Frequently Asked Questions About PG&E Lawsuits

Can I sue PG&E if my home was destroyed in a wildfire?

Yes, you can file a lawsuit against PG&E if there is evidence that the company’s negligence or equipment failure contributed to the wildfire that damaged or destroyed your home. This includes situations where PG&E failed to properly maintain power lines or manage vegetation, which are common causes of wildfires. An experienced attorney can review your case and help determine your eligibility to sue.

What is the PG&E Fire Victim Trust?

The PG&E Fire Victim Trust was created as part of PG&E’s bankruptcy reorganization to handle claims from wildfire victims efficiently. It provides compensation to those affected by specific wildfire events linked to PG&E equipment. Eligible victims who filed claims by the deadline can receive payments for economic and non-economic losses without needing to pursue lengthy court battles.

How do I prove PG&E caused the fire near me?

Wildfire investigations involve expert teams analyzing the fire’s origin using physical evidence like burn patterns, damaged equipment, and utility maintenance records. Witness statements, surveillance footage, and electrical transmission data are also reviewed. Evidence such as downed or damaged PG&E equipment at the fire start point and records of equipment failures help link PG&E to the fire.

Do I qualify for compensation even if I had insurance?

Yes, having insurance does not prevent you from seeking additional compensation from PG&E. A wildfire victim’s insurance may cover some losses, but you may still pursue additional damages through lawsuits or claims with the Fire Victim Trust to address gaps such as emotional distress, lost income, or inadequately covered damages.

How long do I have to file a PG&E wildfire claim?

The deadline to file a wildfire lawsuit depends on the nature of the claim. Typically, personal injury or wrongful death claims must be filed within two years, while property damage claims have a limitation period of three years

What types of compensation can wildfire victims recover from PG&E?

Victims may recover economic damages such as property damage, lost wages, and medical expenses; non-economic damages like emotional distress and pain and suffering; and other costs, including funeral expenses or relocation support.

Can I join an ongoing civil litigation if I missed the Fire Victim Trust deadline?

The official deadline to submit claims to the Fire Victim Trust related to the 2015-2018 wildfires, including the Camp Fire and North Bay Fires, was December 31, 2019, with some extensions and flexibility given in the past. However, the Trust stopped accepting new Claims Questionnaires after September 15, 2023, effectively closing the door on new claims through that process.  If you missed the Fire Victim Trust deadline, you generally cannot submit claims to this specific trust anymore. 

Get Started
Call (310) 207-3233 or fill out the form below and request a free consultation.
20,000+ Families Represented

"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"

Mary Flores
Reviewed
on Google
Read More Reviews
Case Results
We Demand Accountability.
More Successful Results
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case. The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
Continue Reading
$2.0 Billion Verdict
Personal Injury

In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.

The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.

$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million. Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
Continue Reading
$289.2 Million Verdict
Personal Injury

$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial

Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.

Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.

$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
Continue Reading
$265 Million Settlement
Fatal Train Crash

In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.

When companies choose profit over people, we fight. Wisner Baum exposes injustice, demands accountability, and delivers real results for real people. Your Path to Justice Starts Here.
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica
Blvd Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Get Directions
Bay Area
100 Drakes Landing Road
Suite 160
Greenbrae, CA 94904
Get Directions
Washington, D.C.
2101 L St NW 

Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
Get Directions
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute a client relationship.
Send Us Your Case Details
We’ll respond and let you know the best way to proceed with your case.
crossarrow-up linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram