PG&E Wins Dismissal with Prejudice of Putative Negligence Class Action

On February 4, 2026, the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, sustained with prejudice Cravath clients Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation’s (together, “PG&E”) demurrer to a putative negligence class action lawsuit seeking to hold PG&E responsible for increased property insurance premiums across California.

Plaintiff, a property owner in California, filed a putative class action lawsuit asserting one negligence claim against PG&E. Plaintiff alleged that PG&E had negligently caused several wildfires across Northern California, which in turn caused insurers to raise premiums or exit the California market altogether, forcing property owners to purchase insurance at higher rates. PG&E demurred to the complaint, arguing that under well-settled California negligence principles, Plaintiff could not recover for purely economic losses as damages for negligence and that no exceptions to that rule applied. PG&E further argued that, putting aside the economic loss rule, Plaintiff’s claim also failed because increased insurance costs are too attenuated from negligence to be recoverable, even in cases involving physical injury or property damage.

The Court sustained PG&E’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice, after which PG&E demurred to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. In that demurrer, the Court sustained the demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, agreeing with all of PG&E’s arguments.

The Cravath team included partners Kevin J. Orsini and Omid H. Nasab and associate Juliet Liu.

The case is Miller v. PG&E, No. 24CV102960 (Super. Ct. Alameda County).