Position on AB 1795
May 6, 2026
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, Chair
Assembly Committee on Appropriations
1021 O Street, Suite 5160
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Oppose Unless Amended — AB 1795 (Gipson), Smoke Damage Recovery Act
Assembly Appropriations Committee — May 14, 2026
Dear Assemblymember Wicks,
Eaton Fire Residents United (EFRU) and organizations and individuals signed on below, submits this letter in opposition to AB 1795, unless amended. EFRU is a resident-led, data-driven organization. We represent more than 4,000 Altadena residents whose homes survived the Eaton Fire but were contaminated by smoke, ash, and hazardous debris. Our compiled testing data was presented to the CDI Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force and incorporated as Appendix K of the Task Force Report. It showed that 100% of tested homes in Altadena were positive for lead before remediation, and 96% of remediated homes still showed detectable lead and 36% still showed asbestos after professional remediation. These are not hypothetical risks.
We came to this process in good faith. We engaged with the author's office directly, submitted detailed amendments, and invested significant time and survivor trust into trying to make this bill work. We were told we would see amendments we would want to see. The April 27 amendments moved the bill in the wrong direction. We are asking this Committee to hold the bill until the amendments described below are made.
What the Bill Gets Right
We acknowledge the following provisions as genuine progress.
– The smoke damage definition was fixed. The prior version allowed insurers to argue that contamination did not count as smoke damage if they decided restoration was not needed. That circular language is gone.
– Health-based standards are now the anchor for CalEPA's testing framework. The right agencies are in the consultation process.
– CalEPA is required to consult with DTSC, OEHHA, CARB, and the State Department of Public Health.
– The urgency clause was added. The bill takes effect immediately upon signing.
What the April 27 Amendments Made Worse
We conducted a direct line-by-line comparison of the April 16 and April 27 bill texts. Two provisions were removed or weakened. Neither change was requested by any survivor organization.
The open claims provision was removed.
The April 16 bill contained a provision requiring that existing state and local agency guidance on testing, sampling, and chemical screening apply to open, pending, and disputed insurance claims. Guidance has already been issued for the January 2025 fires. That provision is confirmed removed in the April 27 bill. Under the current language, existing guidance has no binding effect on active claims. Survivors who filed last year get no protection from this bill until CalEPA completes rulemaking in mid-2027 at the earliest.
The rebuttable presumptions were severed from the testing cost obligation.
The bill is supposed to require insurers to pay for testing. But the April 27 amendments changed the insurer's testing cost obligation to read: subject to "the terms and provisions of the policy." The earlier version tied that obligation to rebuttable presumptions establishing that contamination is significant and the claim is legitimate. Those presumptions remain in the bill but are no longer connected to the testing cost obligation. They have no enforcement teeth.
This matters because insurers are already using policy arguments to deny testing to Eaton and Palisades survivors. Most policies require insurers to investigate losses and restore homes to pre-loss condition. But insurers are arguing that smoke contamination does not rise to the level of a covered loss — so the investigation duty never triggers. The rebuttable presumptions were the statutory mechanism to stop that argument. Without them tied to the testing cost obligation, insurers can point to the policy and walk away from paying for testing.
Provisions That Remain Unresolved
The following issues were raised in our prior letters to the ESTM and Insurance Committees. None have been addressed.
1. No mandatory testing.
The bill requires insurers to fund testing required by CalEPA guidance. That guidance does not exist until June 30, 2027. Until then, the bill does not require any insurer to test any home.
The reason this gap is so serious is the standard the bill relies on in the meantime. The bill requires restoration to meet both CalEPA health-based guidance and "accepted trade and industry standards." In practice, "accepted trade and industry standards" means the standard published by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, known as the IICRC. The IICRC is not named in the bill, but it is the only organization whose standards match that description in this context.
The IICRC standard begins with a visual and odor inspection to determine whether chemical testing is even needed. A home that looks and smells clean under that framework may never be tested for lead, asbestos, or heavy metals. The IICRC acknowledged in a March 2026 letter to the Legislature that it is only now convening experts to evaluate wildfire-specific updates to its standard. The bill codifies a standard that its own authors say is not ready.
The fix is two parts. First, remove "accepted trade and industry standards" and make CalEPA health-based clearance the sole benchmark. Second, require pre- and post-remediation testing for every covered claim, not contingent on visual inspection or zone classification.
2. No causation presumption.
When lead, asbestos, or other contaminants are found in a standing home, homeowners must prove the fire caused the contamination. Insurers routinely argue it was pre-existing. Homeowners fight that argument substance by substance, with no statutory help.
The bill should include a rebuttable presumption: where wildfire debris is present and contamination is detected, the fire is presumed to have caused it. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove otherwise. Without this, the testing standards the bill creates are much harder to act on. A positive test result can be dismissed as pre-existing contamination.
3. The 120-day notice deadline runs from containment, not discovery.
Section 2060.2(g) requires homeowners to provide notice of a smoke damage claim within 120 days of 100 percent fire containment. The Eaton Fire reached 100 percent containment on January 31, 2025. Debris removal was not completed until August 14, 2025. That is 195 days. Many standing homes could not be accessed or professionally tested until debris removal was complete.
Most WUI fire contaminants are invisible. They require professional testing to detect. A 120-day window that runs from containment penalizes homeowners for following the science. For Eaton Fire claimants, this deadline has already passed. The bill provides no retroactive relief.
Notice must run from discovery of contamination. The automatic 10 percent sublimit penalty for late claims must be removed. For fires occurring before this bill's effective date, an 18-month filing window must be provided.
4. No savings clause.
Without a savings clause, insurers can argue that satisfying AB 1795's specific provisions discharges all obligations under existing California law, even where existing law required more. Every new specific requirement in this bill is also a potential new ceiling. The bill must include language stating that its provisions establish minimum standards and do not limit or displace existing insurer obligations.
5. Existing obligations must not be narrowed.
Several duties in the bill already exist in broader form under California regulations, including 10 CCR Section 2695.9. Without floor language in each substantive provision, insurers can cite compliance with AB 1795's specific timelines and requirements as satisfying all regulatory duties. Each substantive provision should clarify that it establishes a minimum standard and does not replace what existing law already requires.
6. Scope is residential only.
Every operative provision applies to residential properties only. Schools, workplaces, and other structures contaminated by the same fires are excluded entirely. Exterior contamination is also excluded.
7. No vendor transparency in the interim.
Training and certification programs for adjusters and restoration professionals do not take effect until 2028. Until then, insurers can send their own preferred vendors to inspect and remediate homes with no required disclosure of financial relationships. Those vendors can issue clearance determinations with no independence requirement. Interim disclosure obligations are needed now.
Our Ask
We are asking this Committee to hold the bill until the following amendments are made.
– Make CalEPA health-based clearance the sole restoration standard. Remove the trade standards (IICRC ) language from Section 2060.2.
– Require pre- and post-remediation testing for every covered claim, with no visual inspection gate.
– Add a causation presumption. Where WUI debris is present and contamination is detected, the fire is presumed to have caused it.
– Restore the rebuttable presumptions as the explicit basis for the insurer's testing cost obligation, not merely the policy terms.
– Fix the 120-day deadline. The clock must run from discovery of contamination, not fire containment. Provide an 18-month window for fires occurring before the bill's effective date.
– Add a savings clause. The bill establishes minimums. It does not limit or displace existing insurer obligations under California law.
– Add floor language to each substantive provision clarifying it does not replace broader existing regulatory duties.
– Expand scope to all structures. Schools, workplaces, and exteriors must be included.
Once these amendments are in place, restoring the open claims provision would mean the bill reaches the 13,000-plus survivors with active claims from the January 2025 fires. Without the amendments, restoring that provision would apply a weakened framework to open claims and could leave survivors worse off than they are today under existing California law.
Our Commitment
We are not asking this Committee to kill this bill. We are asking it to hold the bill until it does what it says it does.
A bill that creates the appearance of protection while leaving the loopholes intact is not a win for fire survivors. It is a shield for the industry. We have invested too much — and our community has trusted us too much — to accept that outcome.