Insurance Industry Responds to Recent New York Times Coverage of Wildfire Smoke Claims

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and its member companies extend deep concern to families and communities affected by the Los Angeles area wildfires. Wildfire recovery is enormously challenging, and insurers remain committed to assisting policyholders throughout the claims process and recovery.

In light of two recent New York Timesarticles examining how wildfire smoke damage is assessed and remediated, APCIA supports continued public attention on this issue and offers additional scientific and policy context to help consumers, policymakers, and media better understand these complex matters. The Times articles made some positive contributions to a better understanding of the issue, but also had significant shortcomings.

Commitment to Families and Clear Communication

Returning home after a wildfire is an emotional and difficult milestone. Insurers understand these concerns and work to ensure remediation follows established professional methods. The goal is to ensure that homes are appropriately remediated and restored to pre-loss conditions. It is important to recognize that with indoor environments, pre-loss conditions typically may include some level of background particulate and chemical presence which naturally exists and is expected.

Scientific Considerations Missing From Recent Reporting

The December New York Times article highlights a case involving additional testing months after initial professional remediation. While the family's concerns are important, several scientific factors were not included in the reporting:

• Timing matters. Post-remediation clearance testing reflects conditions shortly after professional cleaning. Testing conducted many months later can be influenced by typical household activity, ventilation, outdoor soil and dust, and seasonal environmental changes.
• Re-contamination (through re-entrainment) occurs naturally. Once residents return, normal daily activities often will reintroduce particles into indoor spaces-regardless of how thorough the original remediation was.
• Multiple potential sources of substances. Heavy metals can originate from a wide range of everyday environmental and consumer sources. For example, lead is widely documented throughout Los Angeles and was acknowledged in the post testing as present in outdoor soil. Arsenic likewise occurs naturally in soil and can also be associated with certain playground equipment, treated wood, and some foods. To illustrate these broader exposure pathways, a recent health study in Florida found that consuming relatively small amounts of certain candies could exceed recommended annual arsenic exposure limits, with more than half of the products tested showing elevated levels. This demonstrates that arsenic detections alone cannot establish wildfire-related causation. The New York Times analysis did not evaluate these alternative exposure pathways, leaving its causal inferences incomplete and not scientifically supported by the information presented.
• Many chemical compounds, including carcinogens, are present in every home, whether exposed to wildfire smoke or not. Insurers consult independent experts to put these findings in context and determine whether they may reasonably be connected to the fire. Building materials, furnishings, personal care products, paints, solvents, gasoline-powered vehicles and their emissions, infiltration of outdoor air, cooking appliances, fireplaces, common cleaning products, and even the age and condition of a home can all contribute to background levels of particulates and chemical compounds. Research even suggests that indoor air quality is often worse than outdoor air. It is important to recognize that no home is ever completely sterile or free of contaminants, which highlights the inherent uncertainty and difficulty in restoring a home to its pre-event condition. This highlights why a clear, science-based standard is needed.
• Hair testing cannot determine exposure source. Hair analysis can confirm that a substance was encountered but cannot determine where or how exposure occurred, making it unreliable for attributing causation.

Taken together, these scientific limitations mean later detections may show correlation, not causation, and cannot on their own be used to conclude that earlier remediation was inadequate or that insurance obligations were not fulfilled.

These points do not diminish the very real concerns families experience after a wildfire.

Coverage and the Importance of Credible Science

When smoke damage is covered under a policy, insurers routinely provide professional cleaning, remediation, and additional living expenses when appropriate. A broader challenge is that no single, universally accepted scientific standard currently exists for wildfire smoke testing and remediation at the time of the LA fires.

Moreover, there are no formally established scientific standards for the majority of contaminants found in residential environments. This includes particulate matter, many classes of chemical compounds, and most heavy metals - except in specific cases where standards exist, such as for lead and asbestos in homes built prior to the 1980s.

Since that time, new Technical Guides have been released that provide additional clarity and guidance for practitioners. Prior to their publication, the absence of universally accepted scientific standards meant that approaches used by environmental professionals could differ. This lack of standardization has understandably made it more challenging for consumers, regulators, and the media to interpret environmental sampling results-particularly long after a fire event-because different methods can yield results that are not directly comparable.

It is also important to note that property insurance generally pays to repair or replace physical property, not outdoor environments such as soil. Property insurance also typically covers sudden and accidental loss, rather than repeat or ongoing environmental exposure. Insurers review each claim individually to make sure decisions are based on the specifics of that situation and what the policy covers.

Insurers recognize that wildfire smoke claims involve complex science, evolving research, and deeply emotional circumstances. APCIA continues to work with state agencies and scientific bodies to support rigorous, peer reviewed, consensus-based standards that protect consumers and provide clarity. Insurers are committed to supporting consumers by providing clearer information about:

• What professional remediation can reasonably achieve;
• What "normal background conditions" mean in real-world environments;
• The difference between causation and mere correlation;
• The limitations of certain testing methods; and
• Why defensible, science-based standards matter for both consumer protection and long-term affordability.

Conclusion

Wildfire survivors deserve compassion, clarity, and confidence that their homes have been adequately remediated and restored to pre-loss conditions-in line with scientifically supported expectations for indoor environments.

Insurers share this priority and remain committed to partnering with regulators, scientists, and consumer advocates to advance credible, consistent standards that support families and maintain access to affordable insurance in wildfire prone regions.