Edison can’t pursue liability for Thomas fire from public entities

A Los Angeles County judge granted two motions barring SoCal Edison from pursuing wildfire claims against public entities including Santa Barbara County.

Judge William F. Highberger granted a motion in limine, preventing Edison from pursuing claims against the entities to help it recoup some of the $680 million it paid out in settlements with individuals.

Edison sought to share liability with Santa Barbara County and four other public entities for the mudslide that occurred in the mountains north of Montecito that were burned by the Thomas fire.

Highberger also granted Santa Barbara County’s motion for summary judgment, barring Edison’s claims for indemnity based on inverse condemnation. Edison sought an indemnification award for the $680 million even though it refused to disclose details of those settlements, according to court filings.

“The court concludes that denial of practical access to the most relevant expert and narrative information is such a serious denial of due process to cross-defendants that the motions must be granted. Edison has produced some discovery to cross-defendants, but it is providing records that are collateral to the primary discovery,” Highberger wrote on Nov. 8. Southern California Fire Cases, JCCP 4965 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 30, 2018).

Highberger likened damages discovery in the case to an archery target with a bull’s-eye that is invisible, with only the outer edges for the cross-defendants to work with.

Meyers Nave principal Deborah J. Fox represents Santa Barbara County in the indemnity dispute with Edison.

“They were basically saying, ‘County, we can give you enough that you should be satisfied, we will give you different pieces that will reflect the damages but we won’t tell you what people demanded for emotional distress,’” Fox said in a telephone interview.

“That’s not the way our adversary system works. We get the whole picture. We probe it, we test it, but you can’t hide it from us,” she continued.

Edison’s attorneys from Hueston Hennigan LLP did not respond to a request for an interview.

Edison’s cross-complaint against Montecito Water District, the California Department of Transportation, and the city and county of Santa Barbara alleged that their negligent maintenance of infrastructure, bridges, culverts and pipelines exacerbated the wildfire-induced mudslide under causes of action for equitable indemnity, contribution and apportionment of fault.

But Santa Barbara County argued in its motion for summary judgment that Edison had waived its right to “pass-through any settlement amounts.” Edison failed “to allocate settlement payments between claims that are subject to joint liability and claims that are not (such as noneconomic damages, fire damages, inverse claims, Public Utilities Code § 2106 and Health & Safety Code § 13077, and punitive damages),” the county said.

“Liability for inverse condemnation is several only and does not provide a basis for Edison to seek equitable indemnity or contribution for any settlement funds,” the filing continues.

Edison opposed Santa Barbara County’s motion for summary adjudication, arguing that the county’s actions and inactions exacerbated the Jan. 9, 2018 debris flow. The utility also said that the county refused to take part in the resolution protocol yet still got access to the “vast majority” of plaintiffs’ damages information.