The Los Angeles wildfires of early 2025 left more than scorched hillsides. They left thousands of ostensibly “undamaged” homes infused with an invisible cocktail of heavy-metal dust, corrosive salts and carcinogenic organic compounds. Merlin Law Group attorney Rob Rahmani saw the problem up close this week when he accompanied a certified industrial hygienist retained by our firm to a 3,000-square-foot client residence.
The insurer had hired its own hygienist, but pursuant to the insurance carrier’s instructions, that consultant took no more than ten samples and will only order lab tests searching for smoke, soot and ash rather than the more toxic fire residue. Standing in rooms where a gray film coated window tracks and HVAC returns, the hygienist quietly told Rob that the insurer had dictated the scope of the “investigation” before it began, virtually ensuring that lithium from e-bike batteries, arsenic from pressure-treated lumber and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons embedded behind drywall would never be documented.
That claim investigation scene is not an outlier. This spring, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) issued Bulletin 2025-7, reminding carriers that they must perform a “thorough, fair, and objective investigation” of smoke claims, and that “it is not reasonable to deny a smoke-damage claim without conducting an appropriate investigation.” I discussed this in California Wildfires, Toxic Residue, and the Legal Duty Insurers Can’t Ignore. Yet, policyholders continue to report cursory inspections and sampling protocols that stop at readily cleaned surfaces. United Policyholders warns that inadequate smoke clean-up is “a lot of people’s biggest worry” as adjusters push families back into partially remediated houses. 1
Scientific evidence shows why superficial wipe tests miss the worst contamination. After Colorado’s 2021 Marshall Fire, University of Colorado researchers found elevated carcinogenic PAHs “absorbed within the walls or furniture” of seemingly intact homes, and many residents remain displaced because insurers refused to fund deep remediation. 2 The Los Angeles fires replicated that wild-land-urban interface chemistry on a far larger scale, burning vehicles, solar batteries and PVC roofs that release lithium, fluoride, lead and dioxin-precursors. What we are finding is that in many cases with structures where fire particulates are left, insurers perform only a brief walk-through, ignore persistent odors and residues, and deny additional removal costs unless the homeowner can prove the existence of toxins.
Frustration has spilled into courtrooms. On April 10, a group of Altadena and Pacific Palisades homeowners sued the state-backed California Fair Plan, alleging a long-standing pattern of “failing to investigate” smoke contamination and instructing residents to wipe down their own walls with household cleaners. Outside the courthouse, grassroots groups have sprung up. Eaton Fire Residents United crowdsourced environmental tests from 81 standing homes. Every home showed elevated lead, a result many owners say finally forced their insurers to authorize broader testing. 3
These criticisms echo a legal doctrine that is decades old. The California Supreme Court has held that an insurer that “fails to fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim” acts in bad faith. The duty is proactive: carriers must look for damage even if the proof is microscopic. My blog post noted above points out that California insurers who choose not to see or sample behind the sheetrock are reprising the “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil” conduct condemned in the Egan case. 4 CDI’s bulletin reinforces that principle for wildfire smoke.
Why are carriers limiting samples to ten in a spacious house? Industrial hygienists hired by insurers have confided that budgets are capped and protocols dictated before they arrive on site, making needed wall-cavity borings, attic insulation grabs, and HVAC tape-lifts “non-billable” unless the insured pays for it themselves and with their own investigators. The result is a lab report that almost always concludes “no actionable levels detected” because the insurance company investigators never looked where negative air pressure pulled the finest particles. These rigged findings can be worse than useless. They lend an aura of scientific certainty to an incomplete picture, leaving homeowners to battle chronic coughs or corrosive white dust on electronics while adjusters close their files and insurers pay as little as possible.
The public health stakes are clear. Los Angeles County health officials warn that wildfire ash may contain “asbestos, heavy metals, chemicals, and other hazardous substances,” and improper handling can spread toxins “throughout the community.” TIME magazine bluntly reported that, nationwide, the absence of indoor air standards has left residents “in limbo” while insurers pay only for surface cleaning that cannot touch chemicals trapped in drywall. Even so, multiple carriers investigating California wildfire claims continue to restrict testing to what is visible to the naked eye, despite research showing that the highest concentrations of contaminants lie in insulation, HVAC systems, and interstitial spaces.
This pattern of claims adjustment undermines the very purpose of property insurance, which is to provide peace of mind that a safe home will be restored at the insurer’s expense following a disaster. It also exposes California insurers to punitive damages and regulatory risk. Bulletin 2025-7 references California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, which require every insurer to “diligently pursue” a full investigation. Attorneys now cite that bulletin and the Eaton residents’ data set as evidence that some carriers are flouting both statutory and common-law duties on a systemic basis.
Rob Rahmani’s visit illustrates how easily an inadequate protocol becomes institutionalized. Ten surface wipes in a 3,000-square-foot home equates to one test per 300 square feet, fewer than public health agencies recommend for a single motel room. No attic insulation sample means no way to know whether arsenic or lithium salts are poised to drift back through recessed lights. Fewer duct tape lifts mean occupants may breathe contaminated dust every time the air handler cycles on. The insurer’s hygienist dutifully followed the limited plan. Rob’s hygienist took notes for a rebuttal report that will cite not just the missed surfaces but the growing body of state guidance and scientific literature warning about the danger of hidden wildfire toxins.
Carriers can still change course. They can pay for more comprehensive industrial-hygiene surveys, attic to crawl space, using ICP-MS metals panels and PAH screening. They can agree to pay for commission post-remediation clearance sampling that reassures families their homes are truly safe. Anything less is a calculated gamble that regulators won’t enforce their own bulletins, that policyholders won’t organize as the Eaton residents did or that other policyholders will simply give up.
The Los Angeles wildfires have given the industry a chance to show good faith by embracing the science of hidden contamination. Instead, too many insurers are adjusting to a spreadsheet, not to the charred reality outside and hidden danger inside the walls. Until that changes, stories like Rob’s will continue to illustrate a systemic failure and the refusal to look where the smoke actually went.
Thought For The Day
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
—Aldous Huxley
1 Advocate answers questions about home insurance and wildfire recovery. United Policyholders (Feb. 7, 2025). (available online at https://uphelp.org/advocate-answers-questions-about-home-insurance-and-wildfire-recovery/)
2 Kelly Price. Wildfires Leave Toxins in Homes. Insurance Companies Can Do More About It. TIME (Jan. 25, 2024). (available online at https://time.com/6588094/wildfires-hidden-toxins-insurance/)
3 Claudia Lauer, Sally Ho. In Fight Over Insurance, Neighbors Crowdsource LA Fire Contamination Data. Claims Journal (April 14, 2025). (available online at https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2025/04/14/330043.htm)
4 Egan v. Mut. Of Omaha Ins. Co., 24 Cal.3d 809 (Cal. 1979).
#California #Wildfire #Smoke #Claims #Property #Insurance #Coverage #Law #Blog