On the night of October 2, 2025, process material released at Chevron's El Segundo refinery and ignited into a major fire. The complaint alleges that soot, ash, and oily residue then settled on boats at King Harbor, vehicles, roofs, patios, and other outdoor property across the South Bay. Allegations only.
This is a property-damage class action. As pleaded, the proposed classes cover real property, and tangible personal property kept outdoors, located during October 2–3, 2025 within ten statute miles of the refinery boundary — an area that extends in every direction and includes the communities closest to the refinery. Allegations only; no class has been certified.
Submit Information for Attorney Review • Contingency fee representation • 100% confidential consultation
The complaint alleges that at approximately 9:31 p.m. on October 2, 2025, the F-720/C-720 circuit in Plant 7 of the refinery's Isomax Division lost containment and the released process material ignited into a major fire. It further alleges, on information and belief, that witnesses reported a fireball and flames shooting hundreds of feet into the air, and a shockwave felt across nearby South Bay communities. These are allegations and have not been adjudicated.
As the refinery burned, soot, unburned hydrocarbons, heavy oily droplets, and fine particulate matter were lofted into the atmosphere and carried on the prevailing onshore winds — across El Segundo and Manhattan Beach first, and then southeast through Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, King Harbor, Hawthorne, Lawndale, and Torrance. According to the Complaint, "within a mile of the plant are thousands of homes, schools, and businesses in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach," and tens of thousands of additional people live and work within the probable fallout zone.
The contamination did not stay in the air. Within hours, El Segundo and Manhattan Beach residents — the closest to the source — reported visible black and brown residue coating cars in driveways, home exteriors, roofs, solar panels, patio furniture, and outdoor surfaces. Farther south and east, the same deposition reached Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Hawthorne, and boat owners at King Harbor and other South Bay slips documented thick oily film on decks, canvas covers, hulls, and rigging that resisted ordinary washing.
The Complaint in Coffey v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al., filed October 10, 2025, alleges that Chevron operated the refinery with knowledge of dangerous equipment conditions — including 46 safety violations in the five years before the explosion and an equipment-failure citation issued only ten days before the blast — and that the foreseeable result was the physical deposition of contaminants onto downwind property.
Tell us what happened to your property.
Takes about 3 minutes. No cost, no obligation — an attorney will review your claim and contact you within one business day.
Submit Information for Attorney Review →100% Confidential Consultation • No Upfront Cost • No Obligation
Or call us directly: (310) 870-1719
This case concerns alleged physical impacts to property rather than personal injury; the operative complaint asserts no personal-injury cause of action. As pleaded, membership in the proposed classes does not depend on proof of deposition, damage, or loss.
Cars, trucks, motorcycles, and RVs kept outdoors within the area described in the complaint during October 2–3, 2025. The complaint alleges soot, ash, and oily film on paint, glass, and trim, and seeks relief including cleaning and restoration costs. What any individual may recover, if anything, depends on the facts and the court's rulings.
Residue on roofs, siding, windows, patios, pool decks, outdoor furniture, solar panels, and HVAC intakes. The closest-in homes — particularly in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach within roughly a mile of the refinery fence line — show the heaviest, most visible deposition. Professional cleaning and restoration of contaminated surfaces is part of the claim.
Oily deposition on decks, gelcoat, canvas covers, sails, rigging, and upholstery at King Harbor in Redondo Beach and other South Bay slips. The complaint describes this pattern on a named plaintiff's vessel. Relief sought includes cleaning, refinishing, and loss in value. No recovery amount is promised or assured.
Inventory, outdoor equipment, vehicle fleets, marina operations, and commercial premises within the area described in the complaint. As pleaded, the proposed classes include property that business entities owned or possessed for commercial use.
The same mechanism we are pleading in court — a straight-line, foreseeable pathway from the refinery fence line to your property.
Equipment failure and fire at the El Segundo refinery lofts hydrocarbons, soot, and particulates into the air column.
Onshore winds carry the plume southeast along the coast, depositing heavier particulates closest to the fence line and finer material miles out.
Oily droplets and ash settle onto exposed horizontal surfaces — boat decks, car hoods, patios, roofs, outdoor furniture.
Physical contamination of property. Cleaning, decontamination, and diminished value costs are directly traceable to the release.
As pleaded, the proposed classes are defined by objective property, geographic, and date criteria. The complaint's own definitions and exclusions control, and the area may be refined before any certification ruling.
Tell us where your property was located during October 2–3, 2025 and what it is. Photos are helpful if you have them.
Our team evaluates your claim against the class definition at no cost and no obligation.
If the firm accepts a matter, representation begins only after a written engagement agreement is signed. Whether a matter can be handled on a contingency-fee basis depends on the facts.
Independent reporting on the explosion, the aftermath, and the widening litigation. Trujillo & Winnick LLP is not affiliated with these outlets; links are provided for public reference.
Coverage links are offered for informational purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement. The facts alleged in Coffey v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-09699, are set forth in the operative pleadings on file with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Managing Partner · Trujillo & Winnick LLP
Plaintiffs’ trial attorney focused on complex property-damage and environmental-contamination litigation on the South Bay / El Segundo corridor. Lead counsel in Coffey v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al., and primary point of contact for corridor residents and boat/vehicle owners whose property was coated by soot, ash, or oily residue from the October 2, 2025 refinery fire.