PG&E restructuring highlights arcane California legal rule
Request a free consultation
Fire Survivors v. PG&E
$100Million+
Ridgeway v. Walmart
$72.4Million
Brewer v. First American
$15.1Million
English v. Mercury Ins. Co
$14.5Million
Cardoso v. First American
$11Million
Victims v. FCI Dublin
$10Million+
Gambril v. Stewart Title
$9.8Million
Batrich v. Prudential Overall Supply
$6.6Million
O'Bryant v. Ameripride
$5.25Million
Victims V. Sanger
$5.25Million
Juarez v. Coca Cola
$5Million
Jones v. 7 up
$4.25Million
Confidential Personal Injury
$3.5Million
Galanti v. Cambridge Investments
$3.4Million
Goodman v. Pepsi
$3.3Million
McGee v. Tucoemas
$3.2Million
Mullins v. County of Fresno
$3.12Million
Hidalgo v. Kirspy Kreme
$2.2Million
Pragner v. Prudential Overall Supply
$2.2Million
Handel v. Hutter
$2Million
Vartanian v. SCI California Funeral Services
$1.8Million
Orlando v. Alarm One
$1.7Million
Orlando v. Carolina Casualty
$1.45Million
Bullock v. Bill Davis Trucking
$1.4Million
Massey v. Department of Corrections
$1.2Million
Bolthouse Farms
$1Million
Duncan v. Ag Transport
$1Million
Anderson v. Dr. Willion Ziering MD
$1Million
Confidential Wrongful Death
$1Million
Jan. 15, 2019: “(Reuters) – PG&E Corp’s chances of emerging from bankruptcy proceedings hinge in part on an arcane California legal rule that threatens to keep the utility owner perpetually on the hook for liabilities from catastrophic wildfires even beyond the more than $30 billion the company expects to face from recent blazes.”Continue reading on reuters.com