The Supreme Court Weighs a Billion-Dollar Verdict
The Oregon Supreme Court chambers in Salem were packed Tuesday, November 3, 2026, as wildfire survivors gathered to watch a legal battle. At the heart of the proceedings is a single question: Did a set of jury instructions, drafted with input from both sides, unfairly tilt the scales in the class-action lawsuit against PacifiCorp?
The outcome of this case, James v. PacifiCorp, carries heavy stakes. A favorable ruling for the survivors would protect more than $1 billion in damages already awarded to about 200 wildfire survivors. Conversely, a reversal could threaten the viability of about 2,000 additional claims. The case represents the first class-action lawsuit against a power utility over wildfire damages, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.
A Disputed Instruction from the 2023 Trial
The legal friction centers on a specific phrase delivered to jurors during the 2023 trial: “You may assume that the evidence at trial applies to all class members.” PacifiCorp, the electrical utility owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, argues this instruction was flawed. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., representing defendants, maintained during oral arguments that the instruction invited jurors to conflate the unique circumstances of four distinct wildfires—in Santiam Canyon, Chiloquin, Lincoln City, and Eagle Point—into one judgment of negligence.
“So the court allowed the jury — invited the jury — to simply assume that all the evidence applied to everyone when it clearly didn’t,” Boutrous said. The utility contends that because each fire had different geographical and environmental variables, a single class-action framework was inappropriate.
The Plaintiff’s Defense of the Verdict
Representing the wildfire survivors, Nicholas Rosinia pushed back against the utility’s characterization of the trial. He argued that the jury instructions did not force a blanket assumption of guilt but rather provided a framework for evaluating sufficient evidence. According to Rosinia, the utility’s current objection is a strategic pivot to overturn a verdict that was not in their favor.
The Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to restore a verdict finding PacifiCorp negligent in four 2020 wildfires. About 1,500 more plaintiffs are waiting on the outcome. https://t.co/Ft9VKc8Ibf
“They lost because the evidence was sufficient at trial to prove their responsibility for each of the four fires,” Rosinia said.
The justices themselves appeared to view the utility’s argument with skepticism. Several members of the court pointed out that the trial process was far more granular than the defense suggested. Justice Stephen Bushong noted that the jury was required to answer separate questions for each wildfire and fill out separate verdict forms for each wildfire. Justice Bronson James further challenged the defense on the origin of the contested language, noting that PacifiCorp attorneys requested changes to the jury instructions, which were made during the original trial.
Supreme Court Review Precedes Damage Trials for Claimants
The 2020 Labor Day weekend fires remain a defining trauma, resulting in 11 deaths and the destruction of more than 3,000 buildings. The legal battle highlights a tension: the need for accountability when major utilities maintain energized lines during high-risk weather, and the procedural requirements necessary to manage thousands of individual claims in a single courtroom.
Because the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the 2023 verdict earlier this year, the current Supreme Court review is the hurdle before damage trials for the broader group of claimants can potentially resume. Until the justices issue their written decision—expected in the coming months—the legal status of those 2,000 additional claims remains on hold.
The question of whether a class-action designation can properly hold a utility accountable for four separate fire events remains the deepest point of contention. While PacifiCorp argues that the complexity of the fires makes a unified class action legally untenable, the plaintiffs maintain that the utility’s failure to turn off power is the common thread that binds these tragedies together.
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider a multibillion-dollar verdict Nov. 3 against PacifiCorp for widespread damage stemming from four 2020 wildfires. https://t.co/tN2xoZPyBE
