A home doesn't have to be destroyed by fire to suffer significant smoke-related damage.
Smoke, soot, ash, and combustion by-products can enter a building, damage its contents, travel through HVAC systems, and settle in areas where the effects may not be immediately visible.
Determining what needs cleaning, what requires replacement, and when a home is ready for occupancy can be technically complicated.
In 2026, California enacted legislation intended to address some of these uncertainties following major wildfire events. The development matters beyond California, but homeowners must distinguish between a new law in one state and the technical principles that may help evaluate a loss elsewhere.
What California Changed
California Assembly Bill 1795, the Smoke Damage Recovery Act, was signed on September 15, 2026, as Chapter 240. On the same date, California also enacted AB 1642, Chapter 239, which addresses wildfire-contamination standards. The California Department of Insurance announced the signing on September 15, describing new requirements for the investigation, testing, remediation, and restoration of wildfire smoke-damaged homes.
The bills address different parts of the new framework. AB 1795 adds insurance-claim provisions, including a rebuttable presumption linking smoke damage in a defined wildfire-impact zone to the wildfire; provisions for additional living expenses for covered smoke-damage claims; responsibilities for necessary sampling and testing, subject to policy terms; and claim inspection, restoration, and payment requirements. AB 1642 establishes a separate framework for developing wildfire-contamination evaluation and restoration standards. Enactment does not mean that every standard or requirement was already operational in September 2026.
Chaptered AB 1795 sets distinct deadlines. For the Lineage warehouse fire, it requires a Department of Insurance coverage-gap study by July 1, 2027; a Department of Insurance written report by December 1, 2027; and a separate emergency-management report by July 31, 2028. By July 1, 2029, the Department of Insurance must develop training and certification programs for insurer-side and public adjusters; California occupational-safety officials must propose worker-protection regulations by that date. Separately, Insurance Code section 2060.2 establishes conditional 30-day inspections and certain payment timeframes for claims within its defined scope. The act conditions its operation on the enactment and effectiveness of AB 1642 by January 1, 2027; AB 1642 was chaptered on September 15, 2026. These dates do not create a single universal start date or a uniform 30-day deadline for every property claim.
The law reflects increasing attention to a recurring problem: How should parties determine whether smoke-affected property has been appropriately investigated and restored?
This Is California Law, Not a Rule for Every Western State
The California legislation does not create new legal rights for homeowners in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or Utah. Insurance coverage and claim obligations in those states continue to depend on their own laws, regulations, and the operative policy.
The new California provisions are limited by their definitions, applicability, effective date, and policy terms. They should not be cited as a universal testing mandate or as an unconditional guarantee that temporary-housing benefits continue until clearance. They also do not change Colorado coverage terms. Any specific rights or deadlines require reference to the operative statutory text and the individual policy.
Nevertheless, the technical issues receiving attention in California are familiar to property owners throughout the West.
Why Visual Inspection Is Not Always Enough
A visual inspection can identify soot deposits, staining, damaged finishes, and other observable conditions. It may not answer every question about contaminants, concealed assemblies, or the suitability of materials for cleaning. A smoke odor can be relevant, but odor alone may not identify the contaminant, its source, or the appropriate restoration method.
The absence of visible deposits likewise does not establish that every area is unaffected.
A useful investigation considers the circumstances of the particular fire, the materials involved, the building configuration, ventilation and HVAC operation, observed residue, and other relevant evidence. The necessary evaluation will vary. Not every property requires the same testing program, and not every smoke exposure requires demolition.
The point is to establish a defensible basis for the proposed work.
Colorado Has Been Studying Similar Questions
California's legislative approach differs from Colorado's recent process. Colorado House Bill 24-1315 directed the Colorado Division of Insurance to study the inspection, testing, and remediation of residential properties affected by smoke, soot, ash, and other fire-related contaminants. The legislation established a study process but did not impose a statewide remediation protocol. Colorado's work examined the practical challenges of selecting contaminants for investigation, choosing sampling methods, assessing restoration approaches, and determining when cleaning is successful.
These issues are discussed in our existing Claim Library article, Smoke, Soot and Combustion By-Products After a Colorado Fire: Why HB24-1315 Matters.
California's subsequent legislation shows that similar technical questions are shaping policy discussions in other states. It does not make the two states' requirements interchangeable.
What a Smoke-Damage Evaluation Should Explain
Whether the property is in California or another state, a technically useful evaluation should make its methodology clear.
- What portions of the building were inspected?
- Were concealed areas or HVAC components evaluated?
- What contaminants or conditions were considered?
- If sampling was performed, why were the locations selected, what methods were used, and what do the results indicate?
- If testing was deemed unnecessary, what information supported that decision?
- What materials are proposed for cleaning, and what materials are proposed for removal?
- How will the effectiveness of the work be evaluated before affected assemblies are enclosed or the home is returned to use?
These questions do not assume that a particular material is contaminated or that a specific test must be performed. They help determine whether the investigation supports the conclusions.
Contents Require Separate Attention
Smoke exposure can damage furniture, clothing, electronics, household goods, and other personal property. An item may require different handling based on its material, construction, exposure, accessibility, and available cleaning methods.
A hard-surface item and an upholstered item may raise different restoration questions, even when both were in the same room. A reliable inventory should identify which items were evaluated, which were cleaned or retained, which were classified as nonrestorable, and the evidence supporting those determinations. The inventory and physical handling process should also account for any applicable environmental restrictions.
Restoration Must Be More Than a List of Cleaning Charges
A restoration estimate may include cleaning, deodorization, encapsulation, removal, and reconstruction. These operations must work together. For example, choosing to seal a structural surface raises questions about what evaluation and cleaning will occur beforehand and how the result will be assessed. If an affected assembly will be covered by insulation or drywall, the parties should understand what conditions must be met before that work proceeds. A technically supportable scope should identify both the operations and the assumptions that support their sequence.
That is more useful than a disagreement limited to whether one cleaning line item is cheaper than another.
A Developing Area of Practice
California's new law and Colorado's study process reflect growing attention to smoke contamination and to the methods for investigating and restoring property. They do not establish that every home standing near a wildfire is unsafe, that every exposed item must be replaced, or that a single testing protocol applies to every loss.
They do reinforce the importance of identifying the affected conditions, documenting the investigation, selecting appropriate professional expertise, and explaining how the proposed remediation will be evaluated.
For homeowners, the practical lesson is straightforward.
Do not rely on an unsupported assertion that a property is either clean or contaminated. Ask what was examined, how the conclusion was reached, what work is proposed, and how the results will be evaluated.
Sources: California Legislature, AB 1795, Chapter 240, Statutes of 2026 (official Bill Text and Today's Law As Amended, reviewed October 12, 2026), especially Insurance Code sections 2060.1 and 2060.2, Sections 3 and 6–10; AB 1642, Chapter 239, Statutes of 2026; California Department of Insurance announcement, September 15, 2026; and Colorado HB24-1315 background.
About Absolute Adjusting: Absolute Adjusting provides public adjusting and property-claim consulting services in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. The firm does not offer California public-adjuster representation. This article is general educational information, not legal, medical, environmental-health, or engineering advice.