After devastating wildfires swept through the Los Angeles region — destroying more than 9,000 structures and claiming lives — many residents whose homes were spared from the flames faced a different kind of aftermath: uncertainty, frustration, and a fight for health and safety.
The Hidden Threat After the Flames
Survivors quickly realized that escaping the fire did not mean escaping its impact. The Eaton wildfire blanketed homes with ash, smoke, and possibly toxic materials such as lead, asbestos, and heavy metals. Residents worried about the long-term health risks — especially for children and vulnerable individuals. But getting insurance companies to recognize these risks — and pay for environmental testing — became a new battle.
One resident whose home sustained visible external and internal damage was initially told that contamination testing would be covered. But once testing was completed and presented, the insurance provider changed course, citing limitations in the policy. The reason? Testing would only be covered in cases of “major” damage. Like many others, this resident entered a cycle of denials, appeals, and long waiting periods — common across the impacted area.
Turning to Community and Crowdsourcing
Frustrated with inconsistent insurance responses, homeowners formed a grassroots group to collect and share environmental testing data. More than 80 homes have since been tested for contaminants like lead — and all have shown elevated levels. An interactive map now displays the results, providing a critical tool for residents to persuade insurers to approve testing or remediation.
The community-led effort has already helped some policyholders get approvals previously denied. By validating findings through collaborative data collection, these residents are working to close the coverage gap — especially for families who can’t afford to pay for testing themselves.
Lack of Clear Standards and Government Support
Despite the growing body of contamination data, government intervention has been limited. FEMA currently has no plans for broad environmental testing, and most data gathering is being led by universities or private efforts. Local agencies primarily assess outdoor contamination, leaving indoor exposure a gray area.
Urban wildfires are particularly toxic because of the high temperatures and variety of burned materials — everything from household appliances to vehicles — yet insurance carriers have not standardized protocols for indoor toxin testing. This leaves policyholders in limbo, especially when policies are written in vague or outdated terms.
Industry Response and Regulatory Pressure
The California Department of Insurance has issued guidance reminding carriers that they must thoroughly investigate smoke damage claims — including funding testing when appropriate. However, many policyholders continue to face pushback from insurers interpreting policies narrowly.
Some insurers argue that each case is unique, and coverage depends on individual property conditions and the fine print of the policy. But experts and former regulators counter that environmental testing in the aftermath of catastrophic fires should be a standard safety measure — not a discretionary one.
The state’s FAIR Plan, designed as a last resort for high-risk properties, has also come under scrutiny. A 2017 revision to the plan limited smoke damage coverage to visible damage, excluding contamination only detectable through lab testing. Although state officials called that threshold too high, change has been slow and inconsistent.
Safety, Especially for Families
For many families, health concerns are urgent. Some have noticed physical symptoms such as chest discomfort or respiratory issues after visiting their homes. Pediatricians have even recommended indoor contamination testing in homes where children reside. But when insurers deny claims — even for policies that list lead and asbestos coverage — residents are often left to foot the bill or abandon their homes.
Several homeowners were eventually reimbursed for testing after citing worker safety laws or resubmitting claims with additional environmental data. However, the delays added emotional strain to an already traumatic recovery.
The Call for a Clearer Path
The mounting number of disputes highlights a critical gap in wildfire disaster response. Residents say they shouldn’t have to become environmental scientists or legal experts just to ensure their homes are safe. And as wildfires become more frequent and severe, industry experts argue that insurance companies must adapt.
There is growing consensus that standardized testing guidelines, clearer policy language, and faster resolution protocols are needed to protect public health and restore trust in the insurance system.
Stay informed and ahead of the curve — explore more industry insights and program opportunities at ProgramBusiness.com.