Zone of Harm
The Part Of A Wildfire Claim That May Be Disappearing
When people picture a wildfire claim, they often think first of the physical evidence. They think about the burned property and physical proof of the damage. Those losses are very real and significant, but they fail to tell the entire story. California law has long recognized that fire damage may extend beyond the loss of physical property, and that those who live through a wildfire event carry harm that may not be visible. In wildfire cases, these are evaluated by considering the "Zone of Harm" or "Zone of Danger." This issue is part of the debate among legislators in Sacramento, including the question of whether these cases should be handled differently. Readers who saw my earlier post on the potential new legislation will recognize this as a closer look at one of the key topics being discussed.
What "Zone Of Harm" Actually Means
Many California residents may not be familiar with the term "Zone of Harm," yet it is part of a debate that could have serious implications for wildfire victims. At issue is a specific area of California negligence law that permits someone to recover non-economic damages. A resident might, for instance, make a claim based on what they experienced while near a fire, even if the property that was lost was somewhere else or belonged entirely to another person. California recognizes two ways to qualify. One is a direct threat of physical injury: the person must have been close enough to the fire for it to pose an imminent danger to their safety. Consider John and Jan Pascoe, who survived the 2017 Tubbs Fire by sheltering for roughly six hours in a neighbor’s swimming pool as the fire burned their Santa Rosa neighborhood. This is the kind of situation zone-of-harm protections were designed to cover.
The second part involves perceiving harm to a loved one. In this situation, someone was present when a family member was injured or killed and experienced the harm as it occurred. None of this is new. California negligence law has recognized these claims for decades. What is important to note is that the current debate centers on placing limits on claims that the law has long accepted.
What Non-Economic Damages Include
Non-economic damages cover losses that are very real, but hard to attach a dollar value to. These losses include pain and suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of a home where families felt safe. They can also reflect how a fire disrupts daily life. Some claims are easy to understand, such as medical care that continues after the fire is out, injuries suffered during evacuation. Others are harder to see. A parent may be unable to sleep whenever red-flag warnings are issued. A homeowner who watched a neighbor's house burn from the driveway may now experience anxiety at the smell of smoke.
Based on my experience, non-economic damages are often awarded at lower amounts than awards to cover property damages because juries and adjusters do not always treat these claims with the seriousness they deserve. This unequal approach can make the difference between a family being able to rebuild and move forward versus simply replacing the physical walls of their home.
Why This Is Being Debated
Earlier this year, the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) submitted a report to the Legislature, as required by Senate Bill 254 in 2025. One recommendation called for changing the standard governing utility liability for wildfires, including limits on non-economic and punitive damages. The CEA has proposed limits of between $100,000 and $150,000 per person. Governor Newsom’s original proposal included the non-economic damages cap and other utility protections. Democratic lawmakers stripped those provisions in late August and passed a narrower compromise as SB 492. The Assembly then declined to take even that bill up on the final day of session, September 1, and it died without a vote. That does not settle the issue, it likely just defers the issue to a date in the future. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said lawmakers will return to the issue this fall.
“The reforms in this bill, while important, did not address the underlying structural problems driving this crisis.” Governor Gavin Newsom, KQED, September 1, 2026
Newsom and other supporters of a cap to these kinds of claims have argued that limits are needed to ensure utility financial stability. Their argument is that when utility equipment causes a fire, unlimited liability would likely result in higher electricity costs for all, or even push the utility into bankruptcy, disrupting service and leaving customers to carry the costs anyway. That concern is valid, but it is only one side of the issue. The other is what happens to the people who were harmed, and that side deserves the same consideration. Opponents of caps approach the debate with a different lens. In a recent letter opposing limits on zone-of-harm claims, the Consumer Attorneys group argued that such damages "should not be artificially limited under long-standing negligence theories." And I agree with that sentiment. If utilities are protected with caps that limit their liability it does not make the harm go away, nor does it make the costs go away. It simply moves the burden of those costs to insurers, local governments, and taxpayer funded programs, or it reduces the amount of compensation a fire victim could receive at the benefit of the utility that may have caused the fire that caused their harm. Regardless, a cap on damages protects the entity responsible for the harm and limits its victims.
What a Cap Would Change for a Real Claim
The Pascoes survived the Tubbs Fire by finding safety in a swimming pool, but that does not mean they walked away unharmed. The kind of experience they had is the kind of situation zone-of-harm doctrine was built to recognize. That kind of harm carries a real cost, and someone bears it. The underlying question is this: If a utility's equipment starts a fire that traumatizes a family, who should pay for the resulting harm caused by that trauma? It is worth acknowledging that there are real costs associated beyond just replacing physical assets after a fire. If the utility caused the fire, shouldn’t they also be the ones to pay? If liability is limited, those costs do not disappear. They shift to the families who were harmed, to insurers, and ultimately to taxpayers.
Consider the example of a family that lost its home and suffered severe emotional harm. Even with a cap as high as $150,000, the amount might be far below what a jury would award for such a claim. By contrast, for someone whose property survived but who continues to live with the trauma of experiencing a wildfire, that cap might limit their recovery. This type of claim is not the same situation as a homeowner who lost everything. Zone-of-harm rules create a pathway for cases like this. When a person suffers a physical injury or loses a family member, a cap would lower the amount of compensation they are entitled to, for claims that are already the hardest to quantify. The implication of a cap would also be felt long before trial. Once you set boundaries to a negotiation and a maximum is known, both sides understand the limits on their bargaining position. This almost always changes how settlement discussions unfold.
Practical Notes If You Have Been Impacted By A Wildfire
• Our first instinct is to catalog the property lost, but make sure that you also document the human impact, not just the property damage. Take note of what happened, what you saw, any medical visits, and the effects of sleep disruption and stress in the weeks that followed. These details can help support a non-economic claim, and they are much harder to reconstruct after the fact.
• If you were within the area of a fire but did not lose property, do not assume that you have no claim. Existing zone-of-harm rules exist for exactly that situation.
• Carefully review any fast-pay offer or release before signing. These agreements are often complicated, and you need to understand what rights you are signing away.
Final Thoughts
The zone of harm is not some abstract legal debate. It could have real consequences to California residents if restrictions are put in place to protect utility companies. Damages caused by a fire go beyond the physical. They disrupt sleep, how safe we feel in our homes, how we react to triggers like red-flag warnings years later. The Assembly did not pass a wildfire liability bill this session, but the debate has not gone away.
If you have questions about this or any other aspect of the laws related to wildfire claims, I am here to talk.