UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
SMOKE AND ASH TESTING IN CALIFORNIA
Why Smoke and Soot Testing is Critical for Insurance Claims in California
As a public adjuster, real estate broker, property manager, or insurance professional, you’ve likely encountered the increasing pushback from insurance companies on wildfire-related claims. A new legal standard now requires property owners to prove that smoke, ash, or soot has caused lasting physical damage—not just that it is present.
This shift makes professional smoke and soot testing an essential tool for securing valid claims. Without proper testing, your clients may lose out on critical restoration funds, leaving properties undervalued, unsafe, or unsellable.
The New Standard for Smoke Claims
The New Legal Precedent
A recent court ruling determined that the mere presence of smoke, ash, or soot is not enough for a successful insurance claim. Insurers now require proof that wildfire debris has caused irreparable, physical damage—such as corrosion, staining, or material degradation—before approving a payout.
Many policyholders have lost claims because they couldn’t provide documented evidence that the smoke caused permanent damage. As a professional representing property owners, your role is now more important than ever in ensuring they get the proper testing to validate their claims.
What Does This Mean for
Property Owners?
This ruling raises important questions for property owners and wildfire attorneys: How can you prove that smoke has caused persistent, lasting damage? Without clear, testable evidence of physical alteration—such as permanent staining or corrosion—an insurance claim may be rejected.
The Overlooked Danger: Mold Growth from Firefighting Efforts
After a wildfire, water damage from firefighting efforts is often overlooked—but it creates the perfect breeding ground for mold. Many insurance policies require mold testing as part of the claims process, making it crucial for any property impacted by fire suppression efforts.
Without mold testing, properties could be declared habitable, only for hidden mold infestations to emerge later—leading to costly disputes and health hazards.
