Edison Gets Mixed Rulings on Bid to Spread Blame for LA Wildfire

A judge rejected Southern California Edison’s attempt to shift blame to Los Angeles County for allegedly failing to ensure timely evacuation alerts that the company says could have saved most of the 19 people who died in a massive wildfire last year.

But the state judge said the utility can pursue its claims that the county created a “dangerous condition” by failing to prevent overgrown vegetation in the Pasadena area where the Eaton Fire ignited in January 2025.

SoCal Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International, faces suits from more than 10,000 plaintiffs over claims that its power equipment sparked the fire that killed at least 19 people and destroyed more than 9,400 structures.

Edison, in turn, brought claims against several local government agencies, including Los Angeles County, as well as private entities, complaining of fumbled evacuation warnings, insufficient water for firefighting and unmaintained vegetation in fire-prone areas.

A spokesperson for the utility on Wednesday hailed the judge’s finding that the county can be sued for overgrown brush and said the company disagrees with rulings that went against it. The Los Angeles County counsel’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a January filing, the utility said “many factors and causes contributed to the severity of the fire and the resulting damage” and pointed the finger at the Los Angeles sheriff’s department, the cities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre, several local water companies and a regional gas utility.

Last January’s Eaton and Palisades wildfires collectively killed more than 30 people and resulted in insured losses totaling $40 billion, making them the costliest catastrophe of 2025, according to insurer Swiss Re AG. Utilities like Edison are increasingly at risk of facing billions of dollars in exposure from fires, and they have sought to limit those liabilities in court as well as through statewide lobbying efforts to spread wildfire-related costs.

In court filings, Los Angeles County denied it was at fault for damage from the Eaton Fire, which it said arose “solely from Edison’s violation of a non-delegable obligation to maintain safe electrical infrastructure.”

The county also tried to deflect blame for dried weeds and shrubs that helped fuel the fire. “Dry vegetation is a natural condition of unimproved public land and, not a ‘defect,'” lawyers for the county wrote in a filing. They also argued the utility’s complaint was vague because it referred to a 4,000-square mile area.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle said in a June 30 ruling that Edison can proceed with its claim, saying the company “adequately” alleged a dangerous condition and a nuisance created by brush in the Eaton Canyon area.

In contrast, Seigle said the county sheriff’s department and office of emergency management are protected under broad immunity protections for first responders in state law.

She concluded the state law bars the utility from moving ahead with its claims that officials failed to issue timely warnings to residents of a moderate-income, historically African American neighborhood in Altadena where 18 fatalities occurred during the wind-whipped blaze that started on Jan. 7. The first evacuation notices that went out to the western Altadena neighborhood arrived more than nine hours after the start of the Eaton Fire, according to Edison’s complaint.

In a separate ruling dated June 26, Seigle said three local water districts can’t be sued for “vaguely” worded allegations about insufficient water supply for firefighting. Edison had alleged that water systems servicing the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire failed as the fire spread, leaving firefighters and residents with no water to fight the fire.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s application of immunity to the county’s evacuation challenges, and we look forward to building out our case on the full scope of the county’s role in this tragedy,” Edison spokesperson David Eisenhauer said. “Regarding the three water districts, we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are determining next steps.”

Seigle has scheduled the initial test trial over the Eaton Fire for January.

The case is Gursey v. Southern California Edison Company, 25STCV00731, California Superior Court (Los Angeles).