Lawsuits accuse industrial hygiene firms of sham inspections on homes damaged by Eaton fire

Eaton fire survivor Simon Penny watched as an environmental technician from Hygiene Technologies International collected potentially toxic samples from his smoke-damaged home without wearing protective gear or taking a single note.

The worker, according to a lawsuit, brushed ashes with a bare hand into what appeared to be a plastic sandwich bag, without labeling the bag or marking where the sample came from within the Altadena house.

Similarly, Jonathan Allen and Bridget Killian were concerned when Environmental Consulting Industries sent an unlicensed worker to take samples from their damaged duplex in Pasadena but wrote in the official report that the samples were collected by a different, certified technician, claims another lawsuit.

Both Torrance-based Hygiene Technologies International and Environmental Consulting Industries in Chino are named in separate lawsuits that accuse the companies of producing sham analyses that downplay the damage so insurance companies can pay less. The carriers, Farmers Insurance in the first case and American Family Insurance in the latter, refuse to recognize other reports obtained independently by the property owners, according to the suits. The complaint against Hygiene Technologies is a class-action suit.

Advocates for Eaton and Palisades fire survivors accuse virtually every insurance company of attempting to lowball homeowners by using industrial hygienists who conduct inadequate analyses. The insurance industry says the debate is more nuanced because of the lack of standards for remediation in the emerging world of “urban wildfires,” which burn more than just trees.

Thousands affected

“This is a huge issue (affecting) thousands of people. That’s the reason we have these massive standoffs,” said Joy Chen, chief executive officer of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

Attorney Michelle Meyers, who filed the two lawsuits in Los Angeles County Superior Court, said the homeowners are just looking for a fair analysis so they can repair their homes. But the insurance companies want to do as little as possible, she said.

“The carriers don’t want to take the houses down to the studs,” Meyers said. “They want to take a Clorox wipe and wipe it down.”

Krista Copelan, who runs a Facebook group site for fire victims called Surviving Structures/EF Recovery, said nearly every insurance company is downgrading the extent of smoke and ash damage.

“It’s not like anyone is asking for more than what’s in the policy,” Copelan said. “They’re not trying to redecorate their home. They’re just trying to get their home back. The more someone needs to have done to their home, the more pushback they get from the insurance.”

Survivor advocates say some displaced homeowners are running out of housing assistance from their insurance companies, forcing them to accept inadequate smoke damage assessments.

Hygiene Technologies, Environmental Consulting Industries and American Family did not respond to requests for comment. Farmers said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Smoke damage standards

Karen Collins, a vice president for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said the issue of smoke damage remediation is complex and evolving, especially in the case of “urban wildfires.”

There are no relevant residential standards for some contaminants, and certain chemicals may dissipate on their own. Questions remain about how to distinguish contaminants caused by a fire from those already present in the home from things such as fireplaces. Lead and asbestos are present in many Los Angeles-area homes regardless of whether they have been subject to smoke from a wildfire. Also, ambient air and soil outside the home are not typically covered by insurance policy language.

Collins said the insurance industry supports standards for remediation that are grounded in credible science, and some of those standards are still being developed.

“You can test for hundreds of potential contaminants, but if you don’t have a standard to inform potential health risk and a threshold for property restoration … you are testing simply for the sake of testing,” Collins said. “There is certainly a lot of heightened public concern; some, unfortunately, is based on misinformation.

“I know people want to feel safe … but that doesn’t always translate to what current science is or what policy language covers,” she said.

More than just ash

The Eaton and Palisades fires burned LED lights, furniture, electric vehicles with lithium batteries and other items that, when ignited, emit toxic chemicals that permeate walls, porous surfaces, heating systems and other nooks and crannies.

Ash from urban wildfires is more than just ash, said Meyers, the attorney. It is a potentially poisonous mix. Contaminants include asbestos, heavy metals, lead, formaldehyde, cyanide and carcinogens.

“(Carriers) are not using adequate testing or going far enough,” Meyers said.

In the lawsuit against Farmers and Hygiene Technologies, she wrote, the “insurer has worked in concert with an unqualified and dishonest consulting firm to stage the appearance of an inspection, resulting in an unreliable and fabricated report that materially minimized the extent of the property’s damage. … Their insurer is playing games and running out the clock to sidestep its obligations.”

‘Lip service’

In May, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara created a 13-member task force to advise him on potential industry standards for handling smoke and ash damages. He also launched an investigation into complaints by State Farm policyholders affected by wildfires.

Victim advocates say the panel’s membership is tilted toward the insurance and hygiene industries.

“So far, it’s lip service,” Copelan complained.

Collins, who sits on the panel, said the task force is a good mix of stakeholders and should issue its first report in one to two weeks.

Penny and Anita Ghazarian purchased their property on West Terrace Street in 2015. While it survived the flames, it was damaged in a more “insidious” way by toxic chemicals soaking into the house, says the lawsuit they filed last month.

But Farmers, relying on Hygiene Technologies’ analysis, offered $40,000 for remediation, which advocates say is about the cost of a light cleaning.

Penny and Ghazarian hired their own industrial hygienist, who concluded the property needed to be decontaminated of heavy metals and other combustion by-products. It needs an extensive cleaning, said their hygienist.

Used as a rental property, the house can’t be leased now because the owners aren’t sure that tenants won’t be harmed.

“All we’re asking is to give the pubic a full and complete analysis,” Meyers said. “There needs to be a change.”