PacifiCorp Wildfire Case at the Oregon Supreme Court: Justices Weigh Reviving $1.25 Billion Class Verdict

The PacifiCorp wildfire case reached the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, when the justices heard argument on whether to reinstate the 2023 jury verdict that found the Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility liable to a class of 2020 Labor Day fire victims, a verdict the Oregon Court of Appeals threw out in April over a single jury instruction. Roughly $1.25 billion in damages already awarded to 201 plaintiffs depends on the outcome, Reuters reports that total exposure could run to tens of billions of dollars, and the court did not say when it will rule.

For the plaintiffs' bar, the PacifiCorp wildfire Oregon Supreme Court appeal is about more than one utility. James v. PacifiCorp is a wildfire class action tried to verdict in a US state court on a scale few disaster cases reach. It used a structure many mass tort lawyers have wanted for years: one common liability trial, followed by a long run of individual damages trials that apply the jury's findings to each claimant. Whether that structure survives decides how much the class verdict is worth, and whether future disaster litigation can be tried the same way.

What happened at the Oregon Supreme Court on November 3?

The court heard argument on the plaintiffs' petition for review of the Court of Appeals' April 8, 2026 decision. Theodore Boutrous argued for PacifiCorp. Nicholas Rosinia of Edelson PC argued for the class. Edelson is one of three firms representing the fire survivors, along with Keller Rohrback and Stoll Berne.

Boutrous called the challenged instruction "horribly prejudicial" and said no court in the country has certified a class anything like this one. His central theme was geography: the four fires in the class started and burned in different places, some more than 100 miles apart, so evidence that PacifiCorp's power lines started one fire said nothing about whether its equipment started another. On that view, telling jurors to treat the evidence as common to every class member let proof about one fire carry the others.

Rosinia argued that the Court of Appeals had fixed on one isolated sentence in the trial judge's instructions and ignored both the rest of the charge and the evidence that was genuinely common across the fires, such as PacifiCorp's alleged decisions not to cut power, insulate lines, or clear vegetation in high-risk areas ahead of a forecast windstorm. He framed PacifiCorp's position as an attempt to "decertify the class through the guise of instructional error," which he told the justices is "not an issue that's before this court."

How did the justices react?

Several justices seemed doubtful of PacifiCorp's prejudice theory, though others pressed the plaintiffs on the distance between the fires. Courtroom accounts from Courthouse News, the Lincoln Chronicle and Reuters agree on these points:

• Chief Justice Meagan Flynn pushed hardest on PacifiCorp's theory that jurors would have used one fire's evidence to decide another. She asked whether jurors would really think a fire burning 100 miles away proved the cause of a different fire. Boutrous answered: "They could have, your honor."
• Justice Christopher Garrett also challenged PacifiCorp's account of how the instruction would have worked in the jury room.
• Justice Stephen Bushong focused on the instruction's wording. He suggested it left jurors free to find for either side rather than steering them toward a plaintiffs' verdict, which would undercut a prejudice finding.
• Bushong and at least two other justices raised the geographic spread of the fires, asking whether jurors had in fact considered the differences among them when they held PacifiCorp liable for all four.

Reuters described the court as struggling with whether to revive the verdict. Questions at argument are not votes, and the Oregon Supreme Court sets no deadline for its opinions. It did agree in June to hear the case on an expedited schedule.

What did the Court of Appeals decide in James v. PacifiCorp?

In James v. PacifiCorp, 348 Or App 347 (2026), decided April 8, 2026, a Court of Appeals panel reversed the Phase I verdict and sent the case back to Multnomah County Circuit Court. The opinion was written by Judge Anna Joyce.

The ruling turned on an instruction headed "Class Questions Defined." It told jurors that only some questions on the verdict form were common to all class members, that they should answer the class questions based on evidence that applies to the class as a whole, and that they could assume the evidence at trial applied to every class member. The panel held that last part was legally wrong because certain evidence, "particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member." Because the class had been tried as one, single class covering four separate fires, the panel reasoned that jurors could have treated proof about one fire as proof about a fire that harmed different people somewhere else. It found the error prejudicial to PacifiCorp.

The decision was narrow in what it held and broad in what it put at risk:

• It did not hold that the evidence of causation was insufficient.
• It did not hold that class certification was wrong, and did not rule that noneconomic damages are unavailable.
• It addressed only one of the 13 assignments of error PacifiCorp raised, leaving the rest, including the challenges to certification and to parts of the damages framework, undecided.
• It said Judge Steffan Alexander could revisit on remand whether a single class was ever appropriate, now that he has seen how the litigation has played out.

That last point explains why PacifiCorp's opponents see the appeal as a backdoor challenge to certification. If the Supreme Court affirms, the case goes back with both a new liability trial and an open invitation to reconsider class treatment under ORCP 32, Oregon's class action rule, which roughly corresponds to federal Rule 23.

How much money is at stake in the PacifiCorp wildfire verdict?

The answer depends on which number you mean. Berkshire Hathaway's 2026 quarterly reports give the most precise figures, because the company has to disclose them under securities law.

Item	Amount	Source and date
Phase I verdict for the 17 named plaintiffs (June 2023)	$90 million: $4 million economic and property, $68 million noneconomic, $18 million punitive	Berkshire Hathaway Energy 10-Q, 2023
Punitive damages multiplier set by the Phase I jury	0.25 times compensatory damages (plaintiffs had sought 5 times)	Berkshire Hathaway Energy 10-Q, 2023
First Phase II damages verdict (January 2024)	$62 million to nine plaintiffs ($6 million economic, $56 million noneconomic), about $84-85 million after economic damages were doubled and punitives added	Berkshire filings; class counsel
Net Phase II awards through mid-2026	$1.252 billion to 201 plaintiffs	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Of which: doubled economic damages	about $133 million	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Of which: noneconomic damages	about $910 million	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Of which: punitive damages	about $244 million	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Estimated insurance offsets	about $35 million	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Settlements paid to claimants outside the class	about $2.28 billion through June 30, 2026, including $589 million in the first half of 2026	Berkshire Hathaway Energy 10-Q
Settlement with the United States (six Oregon and California fires)	$575 million	Agreed February 2026
Cumulative estimated probable wildfire losses accrued	about $2.85 billion	Berkshire 10-Q, June 30, 2026
Estimated unpaid wildfire liabilities	$572 million at June 30, 2026 (about $1.2 billion at Dec. 31, 2025)	Berkshire 10-Q

Two points matter in reading the table. First, the $1.25 billion in James awards is not part of the $2.85 billion in accrued losses. Berkshire treats the class verdicts as contested and says it cannot reasonably estimate a range for additional losses, while warning that material additional losses beyond what it has accrued are reasonably possible. Second, the $1.25 billion covers only the 201 plaintiffs whose damages had been tried. Reuters reports more than 2,400 plaintiffs seeking damages, with more than 1,000 still awaiting trial, which is where the tens-of-billions estimate comes from. Some outlets give different headcounts (225 survivors in one Reuters-syndicated report), and the published sources do not reconcile them.

The noneconomic share stands out. About 73 percent of the net Phase II awards is compensation for emotional distress and similar harm, not property loss. That ratio is why PacifiCorp has fought the damages framework so hard, and why a class verdict that lets each claimant arrive at a damages trial with liability and the punitive multiplier already decided is worth so much more than individual suits.

Why does one jury instruction matter so much?

Because the James structure depends on it. The 2023 Phase I jury decided questions common to the class (whether PacifiCorp was negligent, whether its conduct caused the four fires, and whether punitive damages were warranted) and set the punitive multiplier. Every later Phase II jury took those findings as given and decided only each plaintiff's individual harm and damages, including specific causation for that person's losses.

If the Phase I findings fall, every Phase II award built on them falls too. That is why the April ruling reached about $1.25 billion in damages awarded at trials where the instruction was never given. It also explains the remedy dispute: PacifiCorp has said a ruling in its favor could vacate the original verdict and require a fully new trial, while the plaintiffs argue that any error was harmless given the rest of the charge and the evidence common to all four fires.

The legal question for the Supreme Court is basically one of commonality and predominance, dressed as a question about jury instructions. Telling jurors to "assume the evidence applies to all class members" is a statement that the evidence is common. PacifiCorp says that was never true for causation across four fires. The class says the trial judge already decided that question when he certified the class, and an instruction carrying out the certification order cannot be a reversible error unless certification itself is reversed. Rosinia's "guise of instructional error" line was aimed squarely at that.

What happens next in the PacifiCorp wildfire case?

The court can go one of three ways, and the litigation will look very different under each.

1. Reverse the Court of Appeals. The Phase I verdict would be restored, but the case would most likely go back to the Court of Appeals to decide PacifiCorp's other 12 assignments of error, including its certification and damages challenges. The stayed damages trials could then resume, subject to whatever the Court of Appeals does next.
2. Affirm. The verdict stays vacated and the case goes back to Judge Alexander for a new Phase I trial, with PacifiCorp free to ask him to decertify or narrow the class, for example into fire-by-fire subclasses. The $1.25 billion in awards would be gone pending retrial.
3. Affirm on narrower grounds or modify. The court could agree the instruction was wrong but limit the remedy, for instance by preserving findings that do not depend on the disputed sentence. Nothing reported from the argument shows how likely that is.

In the trial court, a May 22, 2026 order by the Multnomah County Circuit Court partly granted PacifiCorp's request to pause proceedings. Pretrial work continues, but damages trials are stayed until the Supreme Court acts. The court let plaintiffs enter limited judgments on the completed Phase II trials, granted PacifiCorp's request to waive bonding on them, and set the next damages trial, for 21 plaintiffs, to begin in September 2027.

Key dates in James v. PacifiCorp

Date	Event
Labor Day weekend 2020	Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and 242 fires burn across Oregon
June 2023	Phase I jury finds PacifiCorp liable to 17 named plaintiffs and the class for all four fires; punitive multiplier set at 0.25
January 2024	First Phase II damages verdict: $62 million to nine plaintiffs before doubling and punitives
April 8, 2026	Court of Appeals reverses and remands (348 Or App 347)
May 13, 2026	Plaintiffs petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review
May 22, 2026	Multnomah County court stays remaining damages trials
May 26, 2026	Plaintiffs move to disqualify Judge Joyce
June 25, 2026	Supreme Court allows review on an expedited schedule
June 30, 2026	Berkshire reports net Phase II awards of $1.252 billion to 201 plaintiffs
September 2026	U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other amici file briefs
November 3, 2026	Oral argument; no ruling date set
September 2027	Next scheduled damages trial (21 plaintiffs)

The Judge Joyce disqualification issue

The appeal has a sideshow that could still matter. In May 2026 the Oregon Journalism Project reported that Judge Joyce, who wrote the April opinion, had represented PacifiCorp in private practice at Markowitz Herbold before her 2022 appointment and had not disclosed it. The plaintiffs moved on May 26 to disqualify her and raised the issue again in their petition for review as an appearance-of-justice problem.

PacifiCorp called the motion baseless. It said Joyce's prior work for the company was limited to two small, unrelated regulatory matters more than five years ago, and that she never worked on any wildfire case. Under Court of Appeals practice, Joyce decides the motion first, and if she declines to step aside it goes to Chief Judge Erin Lagesen. The Supreme Court's June 25 order allowing review did not address the issue, and no public coverage found for this article reports a ruling on the motion. If the Supreme Court reverses on the merits, the question may never need an answer. If it affirms, expect the plaintiffs to keep pressing it.

The amicus fight

Business and survivor groups have weighed in. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, represented by K&L Gates, filed a brief in September 2026 urging the court to affirm. It argues the appellate ruling correctly held the plaintiffs to their burden at certification, that a class should not be certified where liability cannot be shown with common evidence, and that the cost of drawn-out class litigation ends up with Oregon businesses and consumers. Oregon Business & Industry and the survivor organization After the Fire also filed amicus briefs. Their filings are posted alongside the party briefs on PacifiCorp's litigation page.

The Chamber's involvement shows how defense groups read the case: as a test of whether a state court can certify a single class across separate disasters and then let a common verdict drive individual damages trials. A win for the plaintiffs would make Oregon an attractive forum for that structure. A loss would push future wildfire plaintiffs toward fire-by-fire subclasses or individual and mass-joinder suits.

What it means for plaintiffs' firms, utilities and insurers

• Mass tort and class counsel. A reversal would give strong state-court support to a liability-first class trial followed by individual damages trials, a model that could carry over to other disasters (wildfires, explosions, contamination events) where the defendant's conduct is common but the harm is individual. An affirmance would show the main weakness of that model: an instruction that treats causation evidence as common across separate incidents can undo years of damages trials at once. Expect careful drafting of class instructions, and more use of incident-specific subclasses, in future disaster cases.
• Claimants and their lawyers. Survivors with Phase II awards hold limited judgments that cannot be collected while the appeal is pending, and PacifiCorp is not posting a bond. Firms advising clients on whether to accept individual settlements outside the class, where PacifiCorp has already paid about $2.28 billion, now face a sharper risk trade-off: settlement certainty against the chance of reinstated class findings and the 0.25 punitive multiplier.
• Utilities and their insurers. For PacifiCorp, the swing is between contested awards it has not accrued and a reset that could cut its exposure sharply. For other western utilities, the case shows that once liability is set class-wide, noneconomic damages, not property losses, drive the exposure. About $910 million of the $1.25 billion is noneconomic. That ratio will shape reserves and wildfire-fund debates across the region.
• Policymakers. Oregon lawmakers considered utility wildfire bills in 2025, including HB 3666's proposed wildfire safety certification with a presumption of reasonable conduct, HB 3917's catastrophic wildfire fund, and SB 926's limits on passing lawsuit costs on to ratepayers, with PacifiCorp involved in the debate. Whatever the court decides will feed straight into the next round of that legislative fight.

Frequently asked questions

What is James v. PacifiCorp?

James v. PacifiCorp is a class action in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon, brought by people who lost homes, property and loved ones in four wildfires over Labor Day weekend 2020: the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain and 242 fires. In June 2023 a jury found PacifiCorp liable to the class for all four fires and awarded punitive damages at 0.25 times compensatory damages.

Did the Oregon Supreme Court rule on the PacifiCorp wildfire verdict?

No. The Oregon Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 3, 2026 and did not say when it will rule. The Court of Appeals' April 8, 2026 reversal stays in effect until the Supreme Court issues its decision.

Why did the Court of Appeals throw out the PacifiCorp verdict?

It held that the trial judge wrongly told jurors they could assume the trial evidence applied to every class member. Causation evidence about one fire did not necessarily apply to people harmed by a different fire, and the panel found the error prejudicial to PacifiCorp. It did not find the evidence insufficient or rule on class certification.

How much has PacifiCorp paid wildfire victims?

PacifiCorp had paid about $2.28 billion in settlements to wildfire claimants outside the James class through June 30, 2026, according to Berkshire Hathaway Energy's quarterly report. It also agreed in February 2026 to pay the United States $575 million. Berkshire reports cumulative estimated probable wildfire losses of about $2.85 billion.

What happens to the $1.25 billion in damages awards if PacifiCorp wins?

If the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals, the Phase I liability findings stay vacated, and the roughly $1.25 billion awarded to 201 plaintiffs in damages trials built on those findings falls with them pending a new liability trial. PacifiCorp could also ask the trial court to decertify or narrow the class.

When is the next PacifiCorp damages trial?

Damages trials are stayed under a May 22, 2026 Multnomah County order until the Supreme Court resolves the appeal. The next trial, covering 21 plaintiffs, is set to begin in September 2027.