PacifiCorp Ruling Shows Limits Of Aggregate Wildfire Loss Models
-
July 28, 2026
Downloads
Download Article
-
This article from Law360 was first published on July 9, 2026. The entire publication is available at: https://www.law360.com/articles/2488671
Wildfire litigation often involves widespread property damage across large geographic areas, making aggregate economic models an appealing way to estimate losses. However, the usefulness of these models depends on whether they accurately reflect the specific facts, locations and theories of causation involved in a case.
The Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision in James v. PacifiCorp, a class action arising from the 2020 Oregon Labor Day wildfires, highlights the risks of applying a single framework too broadly. The case included more than 2,000 parcels affected by multiple fires across different parts of the state. It also involved varying allegations about how PacifiCorp’s actions contributed to the resulting harm. The court reversed and remanded the case after finding that the jury should not have been instructed to assume the evidence applied equally to every member of the class.
The ruling has important implications for the use of difference-in-differences analysis, a common statistical method for estimating losses by comparing changes in affected and unaffected groups over time. While the methodology can provide a practical alternative to assessing damages property by property, it relies on clearly defined events, comparable treatment and control groups, and a consistent theory of loss.
In this article, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Paige Van Oosten and Jason Kim, together with FTI Consulting’s Kevin Cahill, examine the James decision and explain why economic damages models in wildfire cases must be closely tailored to the relevant fire footprint, geography, property types and causation evidence.
Reprinted with permission from Law360© 2026 Portfolio Media, Inc. All rights reserved
Related Insights
Published
July 28, 2026
Key Contacts
Managing Director