Disclaimer: This interview focuses on general legal information for survivors and does not constitute individual legal advice.
Going a little deeper than her previous explainer, Allison Walker is back! This time, she spoke with Amanda Riddle, a lead wildfire litigation attorney, about warning signs within the Southern California Edison Wildfire Compensation Program and the steps survivors can take to protect their rights before deciding how to move forward. Riddle is one of three court-appointed liaison counsel representing Eaton Fire survivors in litigation against Southern California Edison (SCE). Courts have repeatedly appointed her to leadership roles in major cases, including the PG&E bankruptcy wildfire proceedings, the 2015 Butte Fire cases, and the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion. She was part of the team that negotiated the $13.5 billion PG&E wildfire settlement and now serves on the Trust Oversight Committee overseeing distribution of those funds. Riddle has represented thousands of wildfire and explosion victims and has been recognized by Super Lawyers in Northern California, including being named to the Top 50 Women Lawyers and Top 100 Lawyers lists.
Founder’s Note: This interview is one of the most comprehensive resources we’ve seen for understanding the Southern California Edison (SCE) Wildfire Compensation Program and how it compares with pursuing a lawsuit.
That said, we also know many survivors are exhausted. You may not have the capacity to read a long legal interview right now. That’s okay.
Bookmark this. Save it. Come back when you’re ready.
In the meantime, here are the most important takeaways to help you protect your rights and make informed decisions:
What to know right now
- Early offers are coming in low, below past wildfire cases
So far, the average SCE fund offer is about $419,000, less than what survivors received in previous California wildfires, including PG&E’s bankruptcy cases. See Q3. - The fund is built to cap what Edison pays — not to make survivors whole
Edison’s CEO has said the program exists to reduce how much the company must draw from the California Wildfire Fund. That goal shows up in the design: Edison collects survivor submissions, applies its own formulas, sets award amounts, and bars negotiation — all without an independent administrator.
See Q2 and Q7. - Individual trauma is not individually valued
Under the fund’s formula, survivors with vastly different evacuation experiences and psychological impacts may receive the same emotional-distress award. See Q2 and Q6. - What you share can be used against you, but not against Edison Materials submitted by survivors cannot be used against Edison in court, but Edison may still use survivor submissions against them in future litigation.
See Q2. - Insurance policy limits — not actual payouts — may reduce compensation
The fund may offset full insurance policy limits, not what your insurer actually paid. That nuance can erase a large share of compensation.
See Q4. - Eaton Fire litigation is moving faster than most wildfire lawsuits
A first trial is already scheduled for January 2027, which is early by mass-disaster standards. Survivors considering legal action should note strict filing deadlines. See Q1, Q10, and Q12. - Early trials will shape compensation for thousands of households
Jury verdicts in representative cases are expected to establish valuation benchmarks used to resolve many other claims. See Q10. - Not all wildfire law firms are equally qualified or even California-owned
Some firms flooding social media aren’t owned by California lawyers at all. In some cases, they’re backed by out-of-state private equity and lack real experience with California wildfire law. See Q9.
When you’re ready, the full interview begins below.
Q1: Can you share where the Eaton Fire lawsuits against Southern California Edison currently stand, and what your role is in the litigation?
A: I am court appointed co-liaison counsel for individual plaintiffs, which means that I'm one of the people that sits at the table talks to the judge on behalf of Eaton fire survivors, and coordinates between the judge the other attorneys who are representing Eaton fire survivors, the defendants, the attorneys for the insurance companies and the attorneys for the public entities like county of LA, City of Pasadena, city of Sierra Madre.
We are working towards our first trial date, which is January 25, 2027. We are deep in the discovery phase, the evidence-gathering phase in litigation. For the last 10 months or so, we've been doing inspections of the equipment, both out in the canyon, and then tower number three was removed and X-rayed, taken apart, and analyzed by experts. Various engineering fields look at the equipment and determine was this the origin of the fire, what caused the fire.
We are deep in requesting information and documents from Edison on issues of maintenance, wildfire mitigation programs, and safety practices. Of course, the data related to what actually happened on January 7, 2025, and we are deep in depositions of Southern California Edison employees on those same issues. That is where we are on the liability case, which is the part of the case of proving the origin cause and the responsibility for the Eaton fire.
On the damages side, which is the side of the Eaton fire survivors, gathering documents, gathering information so that they can support all of the claims for the ways they were damaged and impacted by the Eaton fire.
Q2: What are the biggest red flags or concerns you have with the SCE Fund?
A: The most obvious red flag with that program is that it is a program drafted and designed by Edison for Edison's benefit without real input. I know they claimed they were getting input from other stakeholders. They didn't, but without any real input from the people who are here and hired to advocate on behalf of the Eaton fire survivors themselves. Eaton fire survivors have chosen a lawyer, that's who they want to advocate for them. And Edison did not communicate with us in any meaningful way when putting together this program.
Red flag number two is that there is no third-party administrator on this program. SCE itself is taking in the information that the applicants put in. It is deciding, based on formulas and a matrix, how much each person should get. So the people who burn down your home are unilaterally saying we're going to decide how much money to give you; that's not how the justice system works. That's not how compensation should work. You should have a negotiated process for any resolution of a case under the law. It's specifically stated in the Edison materials that there is no negotiation here.
Red flag number three, I would say, is that Edison's materials clearly say that they're using formulas and matrix to come up with the numbers and the offers they're making. That really silences the voice of the survivors. In our practice, what's important is having our client’s voice heard, having their story told. And when Edison says, we're paying you all the same amount of money for emotional distress, doesn't matter what you went through, that really silences their voice. It doesn't allow them to feel like the system is working for them.
There is one other real caution that I want people to understand. There's a statement in the SCE program materials that says nothing submitted, conveyed, or communicated in this program can later be used against Edison in litigation. That statement is not mutual. So Edison can take what the applicants, what the Eaton fire survivors, give them, and they can use it against the fire survivor. In litigation, Edison has protected themselves. They've done nothing to protect the person whom they've already harmed.
Q3: Are there any lesser-known risks or fine print that could surprise people?
A: There are a lot of gaps we noticed. For instance, there's no payment for additional living expenses. When we inquired about that at one of the workshops, we were told, ‘Oh, that's what the catch-all amounts are supposed to cover.’ So they're already acknowledging that the catch-all amount isn't really any kind of premium. It is just in case they forgot something else that you're entitled to.
Of course, people are entitled to additional living expenses, but I think there are definitely gaps. It's a little hard to say where all the gaps are, because they have not been transparent in how they designed the program, what all the formulas are, and where they're getting these numbers.
Very few offers have come out. The last data I saw showed that SCE has made 82 offers totaling $34.4 million dollars. That sounds like a lot, but when you break it down by offer, it's only $419,000 per offer, which, of course, is not going to rebuild a house, even if you do have insurance, not going to fully compensate you generally.
What’s interesting about that $419,000 number is, when you look at the PG&E bankruptcy that covered the 2015, 2017, and 2018 fires, and you look at the number of offers that were made compared to the aggregate amount of offers, the average offer from that was $484,000. So Edison is offering, in this program, less than what was coming out of a bankruptcy case, which is definitely upside down.
Q4: What are the top 3 questions someone should ask themselves before waiving future rights to sue and signing the fund?
A: The good thing is that you can both hire a lawyer and engage in the litigation and pursue your rights under this program. Until Edison makes you an offer and you choose to accept it, you can work on parallel tracks. So, if you do go through the program, if you do get an offer, definitely, you should consult with an attorney before accepting. Once you accept that offer and sign the settlement agreement and release, you do have to, according to their offer, their materials, dismiss your lawsuit, so make sure that you know you are consulting with an attorney before you accept so you understand what you're giving up. That's number one.
I would say number two, you have to look at your insurance coverage. Another red flag is that Edison is offsetting full policy limits, not just what your insurance company paid. For instance, if you have a policy limit on dwelling coverage of a million dollars, and your insurance company only paid you $800,000 — and that may be a separate dispute that you have — but if they only paid you $800,000, Edison is still going to offset the full million dollars. So you want to understand your insurance rights before you sign away. You know, you sign off on an offset that could be considerably larger than what you're actually going to get from your insurance company.
There are only two. The global answer to that question is consult with an attorney to make sure you understand what rights you're giving up.
Q5: Based on your past wildfire cases, what lessons from settlements or verdicts should Eaton Fire survivors keep in mind when weighing the fund versus litigation?
A: It is just like any other negotiation. Buying a car, buying a house, nobody puts their top dollar on the table the first time. So if Edison's program is giving you a take it or leave it offer and they're saying you can't negotiate, then they have no incentive to put their top dollar on the table.
In the litigation, when you have an attorney advocating for you — and I can assure you that they never offer us full amount first go round — a mediation, a settlement, is always the result of a back-and-forth negotiation and a hard fought battle, so you are more likely to get more money through litigation when you've got the ability to negotiate. And both sides are assessing their risks and putting their cards on the table.
You're not going to get top dollar from a take-it-or-leave-it offer program, and so generally, that's what we see, is in any settlement negotiation, the closer we get to trial, the more likely it is that Edison or PG&E, whoever the utility is in whichever fire, is going to pay you full value for your case.
Q6: Can you outline a few survivor profiles where pursuing litigation is more likely to result in higher or more individualized compensation than the fund?
A: It's really difficult to do that because you can have two houses next door to each other that look exactly alike, and maybe they both burn down. From the outside, you think that the cases are the same, but maybe one house is two homeowners who've lived there 40 years, who are retired, who raised their kids there. Maybe the next house that looks identical is three renters who have only lived there six months, but they run a business out of their house. So it's very hard, from the outside, to figure out what a proper case value is without looking really at the case in detail.
Generally, for people who really need money sooner rather than later, which we understand so many people do in these situations, and are willing to take a haircut on how much they get in an effort to get that sooner, those are the people that this program is going to work for.
Some simpler cases. For instance, a renter, they don't own property, so you don't have to worry about the whole valuation of how much it really costs to rebuild, what your landscaping is worth, what your hardscaping is worth. So maybe a renter who has a more simple case, where the negotiation and the upper and lower bracket on a case is not going to be as broad and is not going to be as hard fought. That might be someone that this program works for too.
It's really difficult when Edison is saying, we're all going to pay you the same amount for emotional distress, because for so many clients, not only the evacuation of that night and the trauma that it caused, but the discomfort and the mental anguish related to the displacement and losing your home is such a personalized story.
Q7: Beyond what you just mentioned, are there other cases where the fund makes more sense than going through litigation?
A: No, I'm not sure that I recommend the fund, simply because I know that it is a discount program.
Pedro Pizarro, the CEO of Edison International, has said that the goal of this fund is to limit the amount of money that Edison has to ask the California wildfire fund for. He's acknowledging that the goal is to discount settlements.
Not sure that I recommend it for anyone, but I do think it would work for simpler cases, and people who need the money sooner rather than later, and are willing to take a lower amount of money.
Q8: What types of documentation actually move the needle most in strengthening a claim, whether someone chooses the fund or litigation?
A: Documents alone are really important. A lot of clients will not keep their invoices, their receipts for additional living expenses. Those are all really important documents to hold on to.
I also suggest scanning them or taking a picture with their phone if they can, just in case the receipts do get lost, or sometimes the ink on receipts will fade.
Any kind of documentation that you can retain that shows, you know, any out-of-pocket expenses, any purchases, any upgrades that you did to your home, any invoices that you've incurred since the fire on rebuilding, restoring your property — all of those are really important, because they minimize the debate on whether or not you incurred that expense.
Q9: There’s intense attorney advertising after disasters. What are the top green flags and red flags survivors should look for when choosing legal representation?
A: I'll start with the red flags. We do have a real issue with unsavory attorneys advertising on these cases. That is an issue that has been addressed in the legislature. It's been addressed by the leadership. In this case, it's been addressed by the California Consumer Attorneys, which is our State Trial Lawyers, all getting behind the idea that these unsavory attorney ads need to stop, because they really do prey on people who are vulnerable and confused.
One issue we've been having in this case — and you see it more in LA than you do in Northern California — is that in Arizona, private equity companies are allowed to own law firms. In California, you have to be a lawyer to own a law firm; in other states, you do not. So they're coming across the border, and they're advertising. They may be partnered with a California firm, but they themselves are not licensed California Attorneys. The people who own that firm, that's problematic. So I would avoid going to the first billboard you see. I would avoid going to the first social media ad you get.
I know when I'm in LA for hearings, my social media is inundated with wildfire ads. I suggest that people take advantage of town halls. For instance, our teams are having a town hall on Sunday. A lot of firms and legal groups will do town halls as well. They'll talk through the case, talk through their rights, and that's where you really see the green flags: Is this someone that I feel comfortable with?
You want to make sure that whoever you hire actually has experience doing California wildfire cases — not just wildfire cases, but California wildfire cases — because we have specific laws in California that we don't have in other states. So you want to make sure, when you meet whoever you're considering, do they have experience in California wildfire cases? Have they held leadership positions in those cases? Because that shows that you know other attorneys, and the court values their experience. Do they have a team? Are you hiring just, you know, the famous face, or do they have a team? Because that famous face is not the one who's going to be doing the work — that famous face is for PR.
You want to make sure that they have a team of attorneys, a team of staff who are experienced, so they have a deep bench. They have experience, and they can communicate with you however you're comfortable. Are you someone who is email comfortable? Are you someone who prefers Zoom? Are you someone who really likes to go into the office and sit down with somebody? So you want to make sure you know what your green flags are. Do they have experience? Do they have experience beyond the lead attorney, and do they have the ability to communicate with you and work with you in a way that you're comfortable? You see a lot of that if you do these town halls and webinars versus just jumping at the first social media ad you see, which, of course, can be created by anybody.
Q10: A lot of survivors are worried litigation will take years. What would you say to people who feel anxious about the timeline?
A: Unfortunately, the legal system always takes longer than the people who are harmed and are seeking compensation. I would say that, for this case specifically, it is moving more quickly than most mass litigations. There are probably about 30,000 Eaton fire survivors who have signed up with lawyers in this case. So, as you can imagine, that's like moving the Titanic. We have that first trial date, which is two years from when the fire happened, which is pretty quick in the grand scheme of the legal system, and we are very well ahead of where we generally are on the investigation into the fire, the inspection of equipment, the discovery, and that's because the judge set a trial date. We wanted it even earlier, quite frankly, but the judge set the trial date for January 2027, so there's a lot of work to do, and we're moving very, very quickly.
The other thing is that the idea of this first trial is to see what a jury would award different households that have similar damages, so maybe a burn down, a damage, a smoke and ash, a business. It's going to be a representative trial, where we take categories of cases and try them. When we do that and get a sense of what a jury would give, we can use that to resolve other cases. That said, we have been pushing Edison to talk about mediation and enter into a mediation protocol. They have not been willing to do that because they want to sell their discount program first. But we do expect that, the closer we get to trial, the more likely it is that they are going to have to talk about mediating these cases, because the evidence against Edison is so strong that going to trial on a case like this is a big risk for them.
Q11. People keep hearing ‘mass tort’ and ‘class action.’ What’s the difference — and how should Eaton Fire survivors think about which path is right for them?
A: The judge has already pretty much picked the path. I'll start with what the difference is. A mass tort is a whole bunch of individual cases that are related together in front of the same judge, so that common issues can be addressed, but they still stay individual.
For instance, in Eaton, the number one common issue is who caused the fire and how. We believe Edison caused the fire. Everyone's seen the Arco video with the tower sparking. It's clear that Edison's equipment caused the fire. The case that we're pursuing is, why were they so reckless that they allowed this fire to happen.
So every single person who is an Eaton Fire survivor who sues is going to have to prove that same stuff. And we work together to do that, but the case is so that you're not doing it 30,000 times, and also you've got an army of lawyers working on your behalf, even though they're not the lawyer that you chose.
And then the cases in a mass tort still stay individual, so my household can resolve where my neighbor's household continues on to trial. We're not tied together in that way.
So we get the benefit of being in that, you know, group, that army of lawyers representing us. But we're not tied to people who were not in our household and who we don't know.
In a class action, you have to have common damages. So everyone has to essentially be impacted the same way. The case has to resolve all at the same time. So you are tied to your neighbor. You do rise and fall together. You need commonality in the damages. That means everyone has to be impacted in essentially the same way.
Even though they're all impacted by the same fire, there is a lot of disparity and uniqueness in how they were impacted and their story, and that's why a class action is not an appropriate vehicle for a wildfire, and has never been approved in California.
So we're moving forward as a mass tort. A class action has been filed.The court did not dismiss the class action cases, but also did not agree to let it proceed. The judge has signaled that she too is concerned with the lack of common damages, and she's not a believer that a class action is a right path here.
She (the judge) said that they need to make their motion to have the class action certified and she will decide but she continues to indicate that she does not believe a class action is the proper procedure for these cases. Meanwhile, the mass tort case is moving full steam ahead
We've never had a class action certified by a judge in a California wildfire case, and I don't think it's the proper vehicle.
Q12: Is there anything else you think I missed asking you?
A: People need to understand what the benefits of a lawsuit would be. I had a conversation with a lovely woman this morning who lost her home, and she's saying to me, ‘Is there any benefit to me suing Edison?’ I said, well, you have insurance? She said, yes. I asked her, did your insurance pay you out enough? Are your limits enough to rebuild your home? She said, ‘Absolutely not.’
In Southern California, it's really expensive to build, and so people need to look at what you can recover in a lawsuit. The difference between what your insurance pays you and the cost of rebuilding. The difference between the fair market value of the contents you lost and what your insurance pays you, the difference between the incurred additional loss, loss of use, and what your insurance pays you.
The thing that insurance does not ever pay you for is the emotional distress component, which is so significant in these cases, the trauma from evacuation, and also, as we talked about, that mental anguish and discomfort for being displaced from your home, and going from a 2,600 square foot home to a one bedroom apartment where you're all crammed in there, and you're now half an hour away because you can't get something closer in Pasadena.
It's important for people to consult with an attorney so they can understand what their rights are. I think a lot of people are thinking, I just need to get enough money to rebuild my house, but you do have extensive rights beyond that, and you are entitled to be compensated for all of that emotional distress and trauma and discomfort and that feeling of, I want to go home, that everyone's been living with for a year. I strongly suggest that people attend a town hall or consult with an attorney so they can understand their rights and make an informed decision for themselves and their family.
There is a statute of limitations. It's a deadline by which you have to file a lawsuit. The deadline to file for a bodily injury or emotional distress, or lost income, which would be under negligence, also is going to be two years from the date of the fire. So that's January 7, 2027. The deadline to file for property damage under California law is three years. And so that's January 7, 2028. I don't suggest people wait that long, simply because this case is moving pretty quickly. The train is well out of the station. You still have time, but you want to make sure you're protecting your rights and not waiting until the last minute.
The other thing that I would share is this year, there are a lot of bills and a lot of work in the legislature and with the Governor's office towards wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, expanding rights for homeowners' insurance, and so that's something that people should keep an eye on. I'm quite certain that a lot of people learned unfortunate lessons about homeowners' insurance through this experience. They probably found out that they were much less insured than they thought they were, and then they needed to be. So, really educate yourself on your insurance rights and look at all the new laws coming out. There are Senate Bill 876, Senate Bill 877, and Senate Bill 878, which are all coming out that are going to expand rights for people, so make sure you're educated on those, because you want to make sure that you're protected.
Disclaimer: The content shared in our blog is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, medical, or financial advice. Please consult with a qualified professional for guidance specific to your situation.
