By Claudia Lauer and Sally Ho
Any feeling of guilt of survivors was ephemeral for residents whose houses remained standing after forest fires torn the Los Angeles region three months ago.
Many feared that the smoke of Eaton forest fires destroyed more than 9,000 structures and killed 18 people could transport toxins, including lead, asbestos and heavy metals, in their homes. But they had a hard time convincing their insurers to test their properties to make sure it was sure to come back.
Nicole Maccalla, a data scientist, said that the embers burned more than half of her roof, several windows and stretches have been damaged and that her house in Altadena was left filled with ashes, debris, soot and household appliances. She said her insurance expert said USAA would pay for contamination tests, but after choosing a business and returning with the results, her complaint was rejected. The expert said the company only covered tests in houses with major damage.
“Each element is a battle,” said Maccalla. “These are refusals, calls and refusals and calls, and you expect weeks, weeks and weeks for the answers.”
-
The shadow of Dr. Nicole Maccalla, surviving Eaton, is seen next to a yellow cross marked on his alley by firefighters who check his house during the fire from Eaton in Altadena, California, Friday April 4, 2025. (AP photo / Damian Dovarganes)
1 of 9
The shadow of Dr. Nicole Maccalla, surviving Eaton, is seen next to a yellow cross marked on his alley by firefighters who check his house during the fire from Eaton in Altadena, California, Friday April 4, 2025. (AP photo / Damian Dovarganes)
Develop
Crowdsourcing contamination data
Maccalla and others have gathered as residents of Eaton Fire United, sharing the environmental test data in the room and compiling the results in an online card. Out of 81 houses tested so far for lead, all show high levels, depending on the group.
“I have already had several people to reach out and to say:” Thank you for publishing this card … Because my insurance company changed my mind and approved the tests, “said Maccalla, who helped design the data collection to check the results and maintain confidentiality.
Many owners have paid the tests in private after their insurance companies refused, revealing gaps in the coverage. The group hopes that data will help residents who cannot afford to convince their insurers to cover tests and sanitation.
“If I can prove that my community is not suitable for human housing, I can perhaps show that my house will not be,” said Jane Lawton Patelle, founder of Eaton Fire Residents United.
It is not easy to understand how and when he is sure to go home, said Potelle. The small print of insurance policies can be frustrating and confusing, and the government has not intervened to help.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it did not intend to carry out generalized environmental tests. The Los Angeles County Ministry of Public Health follows environmental tests largely by university researchers and a handful of government organizations, but most studies assess outdoor contamination.
Toxic air and limited coverage
Reports of other urban forest fires, in which building materials, household appliances, cars and more burns at incredibly high temperatures, show increased levels of heavy metals, including lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (HAP) such as benzene which are linked to negative health risks. But insurance companies have not standardized tests for these contaminants.
Home insurance largely covers the damage caused by fire, but there is an increasing dispute on damage that damage must be covered when the flames do not fire the property.
California’s insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara published a bulletin in March which put companies on companies to invest properly on the damage caused by the smoke reported, saying that they cannot refuse such complaints without investigating thoroughly, in particular by paying professional tests as justified. But many residents have still been left to fight for the cover.
Janet Ruiz, spokesperson for Insurance Information Institute which represents many large insurance companies, said that it was difficult to compare the neighbors because each complaint is unique due to the physical structure of each house, real damage and defined insurance coverage limits.
“He can vary and insurance companies are sensitive to the complaint,” said Ruiz. “You have to work with your insurance companies and be reasonable on what could have happened.”
Dave Jones, director of Climate Risk Initiative at the University of California, Berkeley and former State Insurance Commissioner, said the tests should be covered even if some insurance companies do not agree.
“It is perfectly reasonable that people do a kind of environmental test so that their house is safe and their property is sure,” said Jones. “We are talking about very catastrophically high temperature fires where all kinds of materials are melted and some of them become toxic.”
The difficulties of the state plan
The insurer of the state of last appeal, known as California Fair Access to Insurance requirements Plan, has been examined for years on the way in which he manages complaints of damage caused by smoke. A modification of 2017 to the limited coverage of the fair plan to “permanent physical changes”, which means that the damage caused by smoke must be visible or detectable without laboratory tests being approved. State officials said the threshold was too high and illegal and had ordered a change.
Dylan Schaffer, a lawyer conducting a collective appeal stimulating the Fair Plan threshold, said that it was surprised that private carriers dispute allegations of similar fire damage.
“Damage is not due to smoke, damage is contamination by fire,” said Schaffer. “They complicate it because it allows them to save money.”
Meanwhile, Altadena residents on a fair level say that their claims are still refused. Jones thinks that the debate will only end when legislators take action.
Fair Plan spokesperson Hilary McLean refused to comment on disputes and individual cases in progress, but said that the fair plan pays all complaints covered according to the experts’ recommendations.
“Our policy, like many others, requires direct physical loss to be covered,” said McLean.
Concern about children’s safety
Patelle said the first idea that his house could be toxic came after meeting his AAA insurance expert in the days that followed the fire. Even if she had wore a mask, her chest was still hurting and her voice was shaved, and she wondered if her house was safe for her 11 -year -old child.
Stephanie Wilcox said her pediatrician in toddians had recommended testing their house. Her agricultural insurance policy includes coverage for pellets and asbestos in addition to her coverage of forest fires, but after several refusals, she paid for her pocket.
“After the initial inspection, (farmers) told us that sanitation would cost about $ 12,000 and that it would be habitable, as if we could come back tomorrow,” she said. “But now there is no way.”
It plans to request a new estimate, including the reduction of lead and other costs, citing the results.
Likewise, Zach Bailey asked in late January for contamination tests. The house he shares with his wife and toddler is on an island in houses largely spared from blocks destroyed by fire. After months of refusal, State Farm agreed to pay lead and asbestos tests because the sanitation company cited the federal workers’ safety regulations.
It shouldn’t have been so difficult, he said.
“It seems that insurance companies should have a game book at this stage,” he said. “They should have a process to ensure people’s safety, because it is not the first disaster like this.”
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
