Guest Commentary written by

Michelle Meyers

Michelle Meyers is a lawyer in Sacramento and San Diego representing Eaton Fire homeowners. She is a partner of the Singleton Schreiber law firm.

More than 14 months after the Eaton and Palisades fires, thousands of California families whose homes are standing still are fighting to find out if they are safe to go inside. 

The California Department of Insurance in March released a Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force report, meant to clarify what it takes to make a smoke-damaged home safe. 

However, of the task force’s 13 members, two seats went to insurance industry lobbyists and three went to remediation professionals whose firms work extensively with insurers. Not one seat went to a fire survivor or an independent toxicologist. The report’s preference for industry-driven standards is a direct reflection of that makeup. 

What the task force found  

The report acknowledges what survivors have said for more than a year: a wildland-urban interface fire doesn’t produce ordinary smoke because it is not an ordinary forest fire. Its contamination can include lead, asbestos, heavy metals and other toxic substances that don’t dissipate on their own. 

More than 13,000 smoke damage claims were filed after the January 2025 fires. Insurers have handled them inconsistently — some denied smoke damage testing outright; others offered superficial cleaning in place of real remediation. 

Eaton Fire Residents United compiled data from hundreds of tested homes showing 100% tested positive for lead before remediation, and 60% tested positive after professional remediation. They’re living with contamination insurers told them had been resolved. 

The report also acknowledges there are no residential health standards for most contaminants found in such fire-impacted homes. We know the toxins are there. We don’t yet have binding rules defining what levels are safe. 

That absence is not a reason to wait; it is the clearest argument for legislative action. 

Two bills, two visions 

Sacramento has two bills on the table. Assembly Bill 1642, developed with input from Eaton Fire Residents United and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, establishes health clearance standards and designates the department as the lead enforcement agency. 

It also preserves survivors’ rights under the Insurance Code, which has guaranteed coverage for smoke damage as a fire loss for more than a century. The bill passed its first committee 5-0. 

Another measure, AB 1795 has consumer provisions on paper — including additional living expense protections, inspection timelines and habitability language — but its safety standards for home restoration require compliance with “accepted trade and industry standards and established technical guidance” set forth in the playbooks of the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification and the Restoration Industry Association — the same guides the task force said had significant limitations. 

The question AB 1795 ultimately answers is not “Is this home safe,” but “Did the contractor follow the industry checklist?” 

This approach serves insurers’ interests but puts consumers’ health at risk. 

The deeper problem is what happens in court. Under AB 1795, insurers will point to the inspection industry checklist and say: “We complied with the law.” Survivors trying to prove their homes weren’t properly cleaned will fight uphill against a standard the insurance industry wrote to benefit itself.  

The insurance industry’s position on the bills says everything. Trade associations have filed formal opposition to AB 1642, but not one spoke against AB 1795. 

Survivors’ needs 

The Eaton Fire homeowners I represent are afraid their homes are not safe and that their insurance coverage will run out before they get answers. They filed claims in good faith and were told their homes were clean — only to find lead, asbestos and heavy metals still there. 

They want the meaningful support they are entitled to under their insurance policies. 

AB 1642 moves toward a solution. But AB 1795 locks in the industry’s current approach before real standards exist, then weaponizes it as a defense in future remediation disputes. 

California has been here before, during the asbestos crisis and the mold litigation wave. Each time, the absence of clear standards created years of costly litigation and harm that fell hardest on ordinary homeowners.