Lawsuit alleges PG&E contractor caused 51-acre fire

September 2, 2016
pg&e

pg&e

Two employees of a PG&E subcontractor caused a 51-acre fire that burned a hillside and multiple groves of large trees belonging to a North County family, according to a lawsuit filed against the utility and the contractor. [Tribune]

On Nov. 8, 2013, the workers allegedly started the fire by operating an ATV on the property near Torro Creek Road outside of Atascadero — which has a high fire risk — despite being warned not to do so. Cal Fire concluded in a report that the PG&E subcontractor, R.E.Y. Engineers, caused the fire.

On Tuesday, attorneys for Daniel and Ivy Underdahl filed the lawsuit against R.E.Y. Engineers and PG&E. The suit is seeking about $5 million in damages.

The Underdahl family has owned the 150-acre property on Torro Creek Road for 45 years. The family has used the land for breeding livestock and growing apple and walnut orchards, as well as pear, plum and peach trees.

PG&E has a 50-foot wide easement on the property because a natural gas pipeline that the utility owns transverses the land.

On the day of the fire, two R.E.Y. Engineers employees were placing GPS repeaters along the pipeline. The workers arrived at the property with a pickup truck and an ATV. They wanted to use the ATV to travel up to and along the easement due to the steep terrain and warm weather, the lawsuit states.

Due to fire risk, Daniel Underdahl said he met with the workers and told them to walk to an area where they could access the easement without the vehicle, according to the lawsuit. The suit also states the ATV operator’s manual says the exhaust system components can get very hot, and drivers should use caution when traveling through tall grass, especially dry grass.

As the workers headed to the easement, one got off the vehicle and walked, while the other continued driving. The driver allegedly smelled smoke and saw grass on fire underneath the ATV. The man allegedly tried to extinguish the blaze using the small amount of drinking water he had.

The fire quickly spread. The worker tried to call his co-worker, as well as 911, but he did not have cellphone service, nor a radio, the lawsuit states.

The R.E.Y. employee drove around the property searching for cellphone service. By the time he called 911, the fire had become massive and billowing smoke could be seen for miles, according to the lawsuit.

Cal Fire managed to respond quickly because the agency was planning on conducting a controlled burn on a nearby property that morning. Cal Fire used 15 engines, four air tankers, three bulldozers, five hand crews and two helicopters to stop the fire before it reached the Unnerdahls’ home.

A Cal Fire report concluded the blaze was caused by PG&E subcontractor R.E.Y. Engineers’ employees operating an all-terrain vehicle in a wildland environment without having appropriate firefighting tools, the lawsuit states.

What was once a beautiful view from the Underdahls’ house became blackened hills, according to the lawsuit.

The suit alleges PG&E and the contractors were negligent in going to the property without proper gear and communication equipment. The Underdahls are seeking about $5 million in general and punitive damages, as well as reimbursement for legal fees.


Loading...

10 Comments

  1. standup says:

    The damages are appropriate in this case. Hundreds and hundreds of trees were severely damaged or destroyed. They all had to be appraised. Damages for tree loss is triple when negligence is involved. In this instance, the atv driver was too lazy to hike up the hill. Most PGE contractors carry 10 million of insurance but one must assume that a portion of that was taken by Cal Fire to fight the fire. These folks went from having a beautiful forested hillside behind them to a moonscape.

    (6) 10 Total Votes - 8 up - 2 down
  2. kayaknut says:

    Given that PG&E uses Davey for a lot of their contract work, and seen first hand the quality of their work, it is not surprising other contractors are not much better. PG&E is not known to spend the money needed to get the best contractors.

    (5) 15 Total Votes - 10 up - 5 down
  3. NorthCountyGuy says:

    PG&E is responsible for not supervising its contractors.

    (9) 21 Total Votes - 15 up - 6 down
  4. shudacuda says:

    When people look at PG&E they see deep pockets, however I can’t say as I blame them. They left enough room to negotiate.

    (4) 14 Total Votes - 9 up - 5 down
  5. TWEEKSBALMER says:

    Just another person(s) trying to get rich quick with an unnecessary lawsuit. Have your actual damages paid for and let it alone. This type of action could make it very hot for you in your afterlife.

    (-14) 40 Total Votes - 13 up - 27 down
    • tomsquawk says:

      There was a fire behind me 2 years ago, caused by a careless/clueless person, that resulted in a great loss of habitat for owls, snakes, coyotes and bobcats. Now I am fighting off all kinds of pests. Actual damages; you have no idea.

      What you ask for ($$) is never where you end up, but based on my experience a fire disrupts things for years. I had written my house off the books had it not for some heroic firemen from all over the state making a stand we were saved.

      The lawsuit is necessary; don’t send your dopes out without a flight plan.

      Get your hands off your hips and and quit wishing people to _ _ _ _.

      (8) 24 Total Votes - 16 up - 8 down
  6. tomsquawk says:

    yes, but those guys were the low bidders

    (0) 14 Total Votes - 7 up - 7 down
  7. aft50s says:

    Sounds like an open and closed case, but 5 million dollars seems like a ridiculous amount of money to ask for.

    (3) 21 Total Votes - 12 up - 9 down
  8. Jorge Estrada says:

    I would not pay them $5million dollars! This was not a catastrophic loss claim and if it were, I would be surprised if their home owner’s policy exceeds $1 million for such loss.

    (4) 22 Total Votes - 13 up - 9 down

Leave a Comment