The phrase sounds like something from a real estate dispute, and originally it was. Inverse condemnation comes from the California Constitution’s requirement that when a public entity takes or damages private property for a public use, it must pay for it. Courts extended the doctrine to investor-owned utilities decades ago, reasoning that power lines serve the public and the cost of damage they cause should be spread across ratepayers rather than dumped on whoever happened to live downwind.
What a claimant must show
The utility's equipment was a substantial cause of the fire. This is the cause-and-origin question — where the fire started and what ignited it. In the Eaton Fire, forensic examination of SCE's transmission towers is the central evidence.
Your property was damaged. Structures, contents, land, trees, vehicles, and business property all count. Smoke and ash contamination qualifies without any flame contact.
That's it. No showing that the utility was negligent, ignored warnings, or could have done better. If its equipment caused the fire, it pays for the property damage.
Inverse condemnation covers property. Negligence claims — which do require proving fault — are what unlock personal injury, wrongful death, and emotional distress damages. Most wildfire lawsuits plead both.
Direct2Attorney · Legal ExplainerTwo theories, side by side
Inverse condemnation
Strict liability- Fault irrelevant
- Property damage and related losses
- Attorney fees may be recoverable
- Applies only to public entities and utilities
Negligence
Fault-based- Must show unreasonable conduct
- Adds personal injury, death, and emotional harm
- Punitive damages possible in egregious cases
- Discovery into maintenance and shutoff decisions
Where the Eaton Fire cases stand
Hundreds of individual suits, class actions, and government claims — including Los Angeles County’s — are coordinated before a single judge in Los Angeles Superior Court. Bellwether cases spanning total loss, smoke damage, business loss, wrongful death, personal injury, and tenant claims have been selected, with priority for elderly and medically fragile plaintiffs. SCE has pursued a “spread theory” that other entities share responsibility, under a court deadline for naming cross-defendants. A formal CAL FIRE cause determination is expected in 2026 and will be pivotal evidence.
The Wildfire Fund
California created a fund in 2019 that utilities can draw on to pay wildfire claims once liability is established, which reduces the risk that a utility cannot pay. It does not reduce what victims can recover; it affects how the utility finances it.
What this means if you're considering a claim
If your property was damaged by a fire linked to utility equipment, you likely have a claim that does not depend on proving carelessness. If you or a family member were injured, negligence claims add to it. A free review sorts out which apply and which path — litigation or SCE’s program — fits your losses.
Property or health losses from a utility fire?
Free, confidential review of your options.
Common Questions
Only where a public entity’s or utility’s equipment caused it. Fires from other causes are handled differently.
Generally not; that requires a negligence claim. Most complaints plead both.
SCE’s program is voluntary and separate from any legal finding. Accepting an offer releases both theories.
Yes, and it varies by claim type. Inverse condemnation and negligence claims may have different limitation periods; a firm can confirm.
No. Direct2Attorney’s review is free, and participating law firms typically work on contingency, meaning fees are generally paid only if there is a recovery. Confirm fee terms in writing with the firm.
