Wildfire survivors packed the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday to hear arguments over whether electrical giant PacifiCorp will need to pay out billions of dollars for starting four wildfires during the 2020 Labor Day weekend. The court's decision could decide the fate of more than $1 billion awarded so far to about 200 wildfire survivors, and it could determine whether about 2,000 additional claims are also considered. Jurors previously found PacifiCorp grossly negligent, a verdict the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed.
The dispute hinges on a single line of instructions given to jurors at the time of the original trial: "You may assume that the evidence at trial applies to all class members." PacifiCorp attorney Theodore Boutrous argued the instruction was likely confusing because each wildfire geographically differed. "So the court allowed the jury — invited the jury — to simply assume that all the evidence applied to everyone when it clearly didn't," Boutrous said.
Attorney Nicholas Rosinia, representing wildfire survivors, argued the instructions did not tell jurors they should treat proof for one fire as proof for all four. He argued PacifiCorp was objecting now as a way to reverse a verdict not in its favor. "They lost because the evidence was sufficient at trial to prove their responsibility for each of the four fires," Rosinia said.
Many of the justices appeared skeptical that the instructions confused jurors. Justice Bronson James noted that PacifiCorp attorneys had requested changes to the jury instructions, which were made during the original trial. "How does it not have some bearing that the sentence that you're now objecting to is the sentence as modified by your own request?" James asked. When James asked if the objection was solely about the jury instruction or the class-action certification itself, Boutrous responded that the utility took issue with both.
The fires over the 2020 Labor Day weekend destroyed more than 3,000 buildings and killed 11 people. Despite warnings about dangerously high wildfire risk, PacifiCorp managers left electrical lines charged. The class-action lawsuit was the first against a power utility over wildfire damages, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.
The justices are expected to issue a written decision in the coming months. Additional trials for assessing damages to groups of wildfire survivors will remain on hold while the court decides.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The court's ruling will determine if around 200 wildfire survivors receive over $1 billion in damages, and whether thousands of additional claims can proceed.
- The case represents a landmark class-action lawsuit against a power utility for wildfire damages.
- A decision against PacifiCorp could have significant financial consequences for its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway.
Background
The four fires at the center of the case occurred over the 2020 Labor Day weekend. Strong easterly winds fueled blazes across Oregon, destroying over 3,000 buildings and killing 11 people. Despite warnings of dangerously high wildfire risk, PacifiCorp managers left electrical lines charged. A jury found PacifiCorp grossly negligent in 2023, a verdict the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed earlier this year, leading to the current Supreme Court review.
Key Perspectives
PacifiCorp (attorney Theodore Boutrous): argued the jury instruction telling jurors they could assume evidence applied to all class members was likely confusing because each fire was geographically distinct. Boutrous also argued the case should never have been certified as a class action.
Wildfire survivors (attorney Nicholas Rosinia): argued the instructions did not tell jurors to treat proof for one fire as proof for another. He said PacifiCorp was objecting simply to overturn a verdict it lost because the evidence proved its responsibility.
What to Watch
- The Oregon Supreme Court's written decision, expected in the coming months.
- Whether the court allows damages trials for the next groups of survivors to resume.
- Potential implications for similar utility wildfire liability cases in other states.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe Oregon Supreme Court is weighing the fate of more than $1 billion in wildfire awards.OPB: “The court’s decision could decide the fate of more than $1 billion awarded so far to about 200 wildfire survivors”
- SupportedThe court heard arguments Tuesday over whether PacifiCorp will need to pay billions of dollars for starting four wildfires during the 2020 Labor Day weekend.OPB: “Dozens of wildfire survivors packed the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday to hear arguments over whether electrical giant PacifiCorp will need to pay out billions of dollars for starting four wildfires.”
- SupportedThe court’s decision could determine the fate of more than $1 billion already awarded to about 200 survivors.OPB: “The court’s decision could decide the fate of more than $1 billion awarded so far to about 200 wildfire survivors”
- SupportedThe decision could determine whether about 2,000 additional claims are considered.OPB: “it could determine whether about 2,000 additional claims are also considered.”
- SupportedJurors found PacifiCorp grossly negligent, and the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed that verdict.OPB: “Jurors previously found PacifiCorp grossly negligent for starting wildfires in the Santiam Canyon, Chiloquin, Lincoln City and Eagle Point over the 2020 Labor Day Weekend. Earlier this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed that 2023 verdict.”
- SupportedThe jury instruction said, “You may assume that the evidence at trial applies to all class members.”OPB: “PacifiCorp argues that jurors shouldn’t have been told: “You may assume that the evidence at trial applies to all class members.””
- SupportedPacifiCorp attorney Theodore Boutrous said, “So the court allowed the jury — invited the jury — to simply assume that all the evidence applied to everyone when it clearly didn't.”OPB: ““So the court allowed the jury — invited the jury — to simply assume that all the evidence applied to everyone when it clearly didn’t,” Boutrous said.”
- SupportedSurvivors’ attorney Nicholas Rosinia said, “They lost because the evidence was sufficient at trial to prove their responsibility for each of the four fires.”OPB: ““They lost because the evidence was sufficient at trial to prove their responsibility for each of the four fires,” Rosinia said.”
- SupportedJustice Bronson James asked, “How does it not have some bearing that the sentence that you're now objecting to is the sentence as modified by your own request?”OPB: ““How does it not have some bearing that the sentence that you’re now objecting to is the sentence as modified by your own request?” James asked.”
- SupportedThe justices appeared skeptical that the instructions confused jurors.OPB: “Many of the justices appeared skeptical that the instructions confused jurors.”
- SupportedThe Labor Day weekend fires destroyed more than 3,000 buildings.OPB: “Strong easterly winds fueled fires across Oregon that Labor Day weekend, destroying more than 3,000 buildings and killing 11 people.”
- SupportedThe class-action lawsuit was the first against a power utility over wildfire damages, according to attorneys on both sides.OPB: “It became the first class-action lawsuit against a power utility over wildfire damages, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.”