As Southern California Edison discusses a compensation fund for residents affected by the Eaton Fire, people in Altadena and Pasadena are weighing a stressful question: accept a quick offer or wait for a case-by-case resolution through the courts. Attorney Allan Bridgford, who represents wildfire plaintiffs, urges caution. He says utility-run funds have historically paid 20 to 30 cents on the dollar compared with negotiated settlements in litigation.
Bridgford argues that such programs are typically “take it or leave it” and can pressure families to accept less than the total cost of rebuilding their lives. He contends that fewer than 5% of eligible claimants in prior fires have opted into similar funds, describing them as a “carrot on a stick” that delays full, individualized settlements. Southern California Edison has not released detailed terms, he said. (The company has not admitted liability.)
“A true settlement,” Bridgford said, “is where each and every category of damages is truly maximized…what it actually costs to rebuild the house in today’s dollars per square foot, what it costs to replace mature vegetation, personal property, alternative living expenses and loss of use, and to be made whole on emotional distress.”
What we (don’t) know so far
Bridgford characterizes the utility’s announcements to date as vague, arguing that a lack of specifics makes it difficult for families to compare options. He says funds often pay by simple formula, such as a square-foot rebuild rate, which can miss large portions of a household’s actual loss. He recommends that survivors wait to see the details and speak with experienced counsel before making a decision.
What “being made whole” entails, according to a wildfire attorney
Bridgford says families’ losses extend well beyond a rebuild estimate. He lists the following categories as commonly underpaid or omitted by utility-run funds, and says they are routinely part of case-by-case settlements in litigation:
- Rebuild costs at current market prices (not a low “per-square-foot” figure).
- Mature landscaping (trees, shrubs and grading), which he says can total hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- Personal property at fair market value, not a depreciated or capped amount.
- Alternative living expenses (long-term housing, meals, incidentals while displaced).
- Loss of use of the home and property over months or years.
- Attorney’s fees and litigation costs, which he says should be compensated in full in a “true” settlement.
- Interest for the time families wait to be paid.
- Emotional distress, including the evacuation experience and loss of irreplaceable mementos.
Bridgford’s position is that any offer should address each of these categories explicitly. He contends that programs which do not do so risk leaving families short of the resources needed to rebuild.
Fund vs. litigation: what changes for the survivor
The attorney describes two broad paths:
- Compensation fund: A formula-based offer with limited categories, typically presented as final and not tailored to individual circumstances. He says these offers are often materially lower than individualized settlements.
- Litigation/settlement protocols: File a claim, exchange evidence, and pursue mediation or binding mediation, with trial as a backstop. Bridgford says this process allows experts to document the full cost to rebuild and restore the property and life disrupted by the fire. He argues this is how families are “made whole.”
Bridgford maintains that individualized settlements are materially higher than utility‑fund offers—citing fund payouts of about 20–30 cents on the dollar and saying “95%+ of the time” litigation is the better choice. He later said such cases “always” result in a larger settlement than a fund offer.
Bridgford disputes that pursuing litigation necessarily takes longer than opting into a utility compensation fund. He argues the funds themselves are designed to delay payment and says court‑supervised settlement protocols or mediation often resolve claims on a similar timetable. When there is a gap, he added in a follow‑up message, it’s “usually only by a couple of months.”
Questions to ask before you sign anything
Bridgford recommends that survivors speak with an attorney who has direct wildfire experience. To frame that conversation, residents can ask any fund administrator—or their own counsel—the following questions (paraphrased from his interview):
- Which categories are covered, and how are they calculated? Rebuild costs at today’s prices? Landscaping? Personal property at fair market value?
- Are alternative living expenses and loss of use included—and for how long?
- Are attorneys’ fees, expert costs and interest covered? If not, how are families made whole?
- How are emotional-distress damages handled? Evacuation hardship? Loss of cherished items?
- Is the offer negotiable, or truly “take it or leave it”? What is the appeal process?
The bottom line—for now
Bridgford’s consistent message is to wait for specifics and get independent advice before opting in. He contends that utility-run funds can leave families with only a fraction of their total losses covered. “Less than 5%” opt-in rates, he says, reflect that reality.
Pasadena Now will update this story as Southern California Edison releases details or responds to these concerns.
Editor’s note: This article is based on an interview with attorney Allan Bridgford. His firm represents wildfire plaintiffs. His firm advertises with our newspaper.
