Smoke, soot, and ash are not just reminders of destruction. They are the chemical fingerprints of a fire that linger long after the flames are out. In Los Angeles, a group of residents formed Eaton Fire Residents United (EFRU) after discovering what many in the insurance and restoration world quietly acknowledge: remediation without clearance testing is a gamble with people’s health. One of their messages is that cleaning a home isn’t the same as making it safe, and the only way to know the difference is through scientifically sound post-remediation testing.
EFRU’s advocacy deserves attention far beyond California. The group has documented homes that, despite professional cleanings paid for by insurers, still showed unsafe levels of lead and other toxic residues. Their work aligns with the LA Fire Health Study, a collaboration between major universities such as UCLA, USC, and Harvard, to evaluate the long-term impacts of wildfire contaminants. Together, they’ve pulled the curtain back on a truth the insurance industry would rather not face: visual cleanliness doesn’t equal environmental safety.
Here’s the crux of the problem. Insurers often approve a limited remediation scope that is just enough to check the box but not enough to address the full contamination. When policyholders or their advocates ask for more comprehensive cleaning or clearance testing, insurers frequently balk. The standard line goes something like this: “We’ve paid for the cleaning. If you want additional testing or further work, that’s on you.” It’s a position that gives insurers control of the narrative because if they refuse to fund the testing, they also prevent the discovery of data that might prove their initial remediation was inadequate.
That lack of verification creates a perverse incentive. Without testing, insurers can claim success; without data, policyholders can’t prove failure. EFRU’s push for “clearance before occupancy” cuts through this fog. They’re not demanding anything unreasonable. They’re asking for transparency and scientific confirmation that a home declared “safe to return to” actually is. In the world of hazardous materials, clearance testing is standard practice. Asbestos abatement, lead removal, and mold remediation all require clearance testing before the job is considered complete. Why should smoke, soot, and ash, which contain many of the same toxins, be treated differently?
Insurers can’t have it both ways. They cannot dictate the scope of remediation while refusing to confirm its effectiveness. If they authorize partial cleaning and decline to pay for clearance, they are essentially saying, “Trust us.”
The problem is that trust doesn’t neutralize lead dust, nor does it remove microscopic soot that embeds in HVAC systems, insulation, and personal property. Policyholders pay for insurance to make them whole, not to leave them with a house that looks clean but still harbors contaminants that could harm their families.
EFRU’s data-driven activism exposes how uneven the playing field has become. In too many claims, insurers use cost control as a weapon rather than a fiduciary duty. They approve the lowest bid, discourage testing that might reveal deeper contamination, and then call the file closed. Yet as EFRU’s studies show, what gets left behind can be worse than what burned. Residual toxins, heavy metals, and combustion by-products don’t stay still. They migrate, they linger, and they accumulate. That’s not just an environmental problem, but a moral one if the insurer will not fully test to find them, provide minimal remediation, and then fail to test whether the remediation was successful.
EFRU’s work is a wake-up call for all communities following a large-scale fire. It reminds us that proper claims handling in the era of megafires and smoke losses must evolve. Every remediation plan should include clearance testing. Every “we’ve cleaned it” should be followed by “here’s the data to prove it.” The absence of such proof suggests a lack of good faith handling because it places insurance company profits over people’s safety.
The insurance industry has an opportunity to do better and to restore credibility regarding fire claims handling. Fund the testing. Publish the results. Show the data. If remediation is done right, clearance testing will confirm it. If not, the insurer has the chance to correct it before sending a family back into harm’s way. EFRU’s demand for transparency isn’t a threat. It’s a chance for insurers to demonstrate that their promise to protect isn’t just a marketing slogan.
The future of fair claims handling in fire losses depends on this kind of accountability. Clearance before occupancy should become as routine as adjusting the loss itself. The science supports it, the ethics demand it, and EFRU has shown that the cost of ignoring it is measured not just in dollars, but in trust.
Thought For The Day
“Trust, but verify.”
—Ronald Reagan