DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

25870561

Rebecca Weissman (No. 322402)

DECHERT LLP 

One Bush Street, Suite 1600 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: 415.262.4500 

Facsimile: 415.262.4555 

rebecca.weissman@dechert.com 

Allan S. Brilliant (pro hac vice) 

Shmuel Vasser (pro hac vice) 

Alaina R. Heine (pro hac vice) 

DECHERT LLP 

1095 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Telephone: 212.698.3500 

Facsimile: 415.698.3599 

allan.brilliant@dechert.com 

shmuel.vasser@dechert.com 

alaina.heine@dechert.com 

Attorneys for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company and its affiliates and subsidiaries

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

□ Affects PG&E Corporation 

□ Affects Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

x Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead 

Case, No. 19-30088 (DM).

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

Jointly Administered 

JOINDER TO THE MOTION OF THE AD 

HOC GROUP OF SUBROGATION CLAIM 

HOLDERS FOR RELIEF FROM THE 

AUTOMATIC STAY 

Hearing Date and Time: July 24, 2019 at 9:30 

a.m. (PT) 

Hearing Location: 450 Golden Gate Ave., San 

Francisco, CA, Courtroom 17 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Related Docket Nos: 2863 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 1 of

6
DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

2

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and its affiliates and subsidiaries 

(collectively, “State Farm”), as creditors and parties in interest in the above-captioned chapter 11 

cases of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”) and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E” and, 

together with the Utility, the “Debtors”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby file this 

joinder (the “Joinder”) to the Motion of the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders for 

Relief from the Automatic Stay (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 2863].1 In support of the Joinder, State 

Farm respectfully sets forth and represents as follows: 

JOINDER 

State Farm is one of the largest property and casualty insurers in the State of California, is 

believed to be the insurer holding the most insurance subrogation claims against the Debtors and 

has recently joined the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders.2 State Farm’s claims are 

expected to be in the billions of dollars. 

Two Motions have been filed in this case seeking relief from the automatic stay in order to 

resume the currently pending state court case pertaining to the 2017 Tubbs Fire. First, the 

Official Committee of Tort Claimants filed the Amended Motion of the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants for Relief from Automatic Stay to Permit State Court Jury Trial of 2017 Tubbs Wildfire 

Claims (the “TCC Motion”) [ECF No. 2904] seeking relief from the automatic stay with respect 

to eleven plaintiffs (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) to determine the Debtors’ liability for, and 

measure of damages in the 2017 Tubbs Fire. Two of the Individual Plaintiffs – Barbara 

Thompson and Raleigh Fohrman – are insured by State Farm.

Second, the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders filed the Motion seeking relief 

1

 Each capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Motion. 

2 State Farm expects the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders’ updated 2019 Statement to be filed 

shortly.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 2 of

6
DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

3

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

from the automatic stay to allow the state court case to determine the sole issue of the Debtors’ 

liability (but not the measure of damages) for the 2017 Tubbs Fire to proceed with respect to the 

Individual Plaintiffs. As previously noted, two of the Individual Plaintiffs are insured by State 

Farm. 

For all of the reasons explained and argued in the Motion, the automatic stay should be 

lifted to allow State Farm’s subrogation claims to be tried together with the Individual Plaintiffs’ 

claims in order to determine the Debtors’ liability to its insured Individual Plaintiffs for the 2017 

Tubbs Fire in the California North Bay Fire Cases, JCCP No. 4955 (Cal. Super Ct. Mar. 12, 

2018) (the “California State Court Cases”). State Farm has paid significant amounts to cover 

Barbara Thompson’s and Raleigh Fohrman’s claims under their respective insurance policies for 

damages caused by the 2017 Tubbs Fire. In paying the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims under their 

respective insurance policies, State Farm has acquired and now maintains subrogation claims 

against the Debtors. 

State Farm joins the Motion and adopts the arguments made therein, including that (i) the 

determination of the Debtors’ liability for the 2017 Tubbs Fire is a gating issue for any 

consensual resolution of the wildfire claims against the Debtors and therefore for the development 

of a confirmable chapter 11 plan in these cases, (ii) there is substantial evidence that the Debtors 

caused the 2017 Tubbs Fire, (iii) the Tubbs Fire caused significant damage by destroying 

approximately five percent of Santa Rosa’s housing stock, burning over 36,807 acres across 

Sonoma and Napa Counties, and killing at least 22 individuals, (iv) the Debtors failed to take the 

necessary steps to reduce the risks of potential wildfires and caused the North Bay Fires, 

including the Tubbs Fire, (v) Barbara Thompson is a plaintiff in the pending state court case 

against the Debtors and qualifies for mandatory trial preference under California law, and (vi) 

Raleigh Fohrman is a plaintiff in the pending state court case against the Debtors and qualifies for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 3 of

6
DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

4

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

mandatory trial preference under California law. 

State Farm additionally asserts that, should this Court lift the automatic stay to allow the 

Individual Plaintiffs to resume the California State Court Cases, its subrogation claims should be 

tried together with the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims. Under the subrogation doctrine, “when an 

insurer has paid an insured the amount of a loss caused by a third party, the insurer may step into 

the shoes of the insured and pursue the insured’s rights and remedies against the third party 

tortfeasor.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 4th 901, 912, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151, 

159 (2000); see also Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1053 n.6 (9th Cir. 

2007) (citing Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Dev., Inc., 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 548, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 303 

(2005) (internal citations omitted)). As noted above, State Farm has already made significant 

payments to the Individual Plaintiffs to cover their claims under their respective insurance 

policies. Therefore, State Farm holds subrogation claims against the Debtors as tortfeasors in the 

California State Court Cases and now has a right of action based on the same underlying facts as 

the Individual Plaintiffs. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 4th at 908 (“When . . 

. the insured is only partially compensated by the insurer for a loss [the] operation of the 

subrogation doctrine ‘results in two or more parties having a right of action for recovery of 

damages based upon the same underlying cause of action.’”) (quoting Ferraro v. Southern Cal. 

Gas Co., 102 Cal.App.3d 33, 41, 162 Cal.Rptr. 238 fn. omitted (Ct. App. 1980)). 

Because State Farm’s subrogation claims and the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims are based 

on the same facts, State Farm’s claims should be tried with those brought by the Individual 

Plaintiffs to prevent impermissible claim splitting. California law specifically prohibits plaintiffs 

from splitting a cause of action where the insured and the insurer pursue separate actions on the 

same claim. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 4th at 909 (“Although the insurer 

may bring a separate action against the tortfeasor, the rule against splitting a cause of action is 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 4 of

6
DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

5

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

violated where both the insurer and insured pursue separate actions.”) (internal citation omitted); 

Intri-Plex Techs, 499 F.3d at 1055 (finding that the insured should have pursued its claim with the 

insurer when the insured’s policy did not cover all of its losses). To prevent engaging in this 

prohibited splitting, courts advise that the insured and insurer “‘join in a single suit against the 

tortfeasor.’” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 4th at 909 (quoting Ferraro v. 

Southern Cal. Gas Co., 102 Cal.App.3d at 43, 162 Cal.Rptr. 238). Furthermore, State Farm, as 

the insurer holding subrogation claims, has a duty to protect its subrogation rights by not 

permitting the splitting of a cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc., 77 Cal. App. 

4th at 912 (emphasis added) (citing Kidd v. Hillman, 14 Cal. App. 2d 507, 510, 58 P.2d 662 

(1936)). Therefore, if the Individual Plaintiffs are granted relief from the automatic stay to 

resume the California State Court Cases, State Farm should be permitted to join the state action to 

protect its subrogation claims and avoid impermissibly splitting a cause of action. 

[Remainder of page left intentionally blank] 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 5 of

6
DECHERT LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

SA N FRA N CI S CO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

6

JOINDER 19-30088 (DM) 

CONCLUSION 

Given the necessity of determining the Debtors’ liability for the 2017 Tubbs Fire, State 

Farm joins the Motion and requests that this Court lift the automatic stay to allow the state court 

case to resume and effectively litigate the sole question of the Debtors’ liability for the 2017 

Tubbs Fire with respect to the Individual Plaintiffs insured by State Farm and State Farm’s related 

subrogation claims. 

DATED: July 15, 2019 

/s/ Shmuel Vasser

Allan S. Brilliant (pro hac vice) 

Shmuel Vasser (pro hac vice) 

Alaina R. Heine (pro hac vice) 

DECHERT LLP 

1095 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

-andRebecca Weissman (No. 322402) 

DECHERT LLP 

One Bush Street, Suite 1600 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Attorneys for State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company and its affiliates and 

subsidiaries

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2983 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:24:21 Page 6 of

6