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.

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 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.

Now the state Supreme Court is reviewing that reversal and deciding whether damages trials can resume.

It all comes down to a single line of instructions given to jurors at the time of the original trial.

PacifiCorp argues that jurors shouldn’t have been told: “You may assume that the evidence at trial applies to all class members.”

A dispute going back six years

The legal dispute over that single line comes out of a disastrous 2020 wildfire season. Strong easterly winds fueled fires across Oregon that Labor Day weekend, destroying more than 3,000 buildings and killing 11 people.

Despite warnings about dangerously high wildfire risk, PacifiCorp managers left electrical lines charged, resulting in downed live wires in wooded areas.

PacifiCorp owns Pacific Power, Oregon’s second-largest electrical utility. It’s also owned by Warren Buffett’s trillion-dollar investment company, Berkshire Hathaway.

Attorneys representing wildfire survivors in different parts of Oregon sought a class-action lawsuit, alleging four wildfires were sparked by PacifiCorp’s failure to turn off power.

It became the first class-action lawsuit against a power utility over wildfire damages, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.

A day in court

On Tuesday, PacifiCorp attorney Theodore Boutrous argued jurors were likely confused by instructions telling them to apply evidence to all class members, even though each wildfire differed geographically.

“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 didn’t tell jurors they should treat proof for one fire as proof for all four wildfires.

He argued PacifiCorp attorneys are objecting to the jury instructions now as a way to reverse a verdict that was not in their 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. They noted the instructions included separate questions for each wildfire, and the jury filled out separate verdict forms for each wildfire.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bushong asked Boutrous if PacifiCorp ever argued in court that the jury should not assume that all of the evidence applies to all class members.

“No, your honor, because the court told the jury that it could do that,” Boutrous said.

Justice Bronson James noted that PacifiCorp attorneys 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.

Boutrous argued that objectionable instructions remained even after changes were made.

James asked Boutrous if PacifiCorp’s objection stemmed solely from the jury instruction, or if it opposed the class-action designation.

“You said there can’t be a class action with four completely separate fires, and I wonder if that really gets at the crux of this,” James said. “Is it really an issue of a jury instruction, or is your dispute that this never should have been a properly certified class?”

Boutrous responded that PacifiCorp takes issue with both: It believes the jury instructions were objectionable, and that thousands of wildfire survivors harmed by four different wildfires shouldn’t qualify for a class-action lawsuit.

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 Oregon Supreme Court decides.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2026/11/04/wildfire-survivors-lawsuit-utility-company-fire-oregon/