SB 839 makes any party deemed a “responsible party” absolutely (strictly) liable for damages that arise out of or are caused by an oil spill, with a narrow set of statutory exceptions. The measure lists recoverable losses — from cleanup costs and natural-resource injury to loss of profits and subsistence-use losses — and authorizes courts to award costs, attorney fees, and expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs.
The bill changes several practical litigation and remediation rules: it assigns the burden of producing chemical-test results to defendants (with limited exceptions), allows courts to join potentially responsible parties, preserves common-law claims while preventing double recovery, and makes liability generally joint and several (with an exception reference to Civil Code section 1431.2). For operators, insurers, local governments, and fishery-dependent businesses, SB 839 meaningfully increases exposure and clarifies how courts will allocate, prove, and recover spill-related harms.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 839 makes responsible parties absolutely liable for damages caused by oil spills, subject only to enumerated exceptions. It enumerates recoverable categories of damages (cleanup, natural-resource injury, lost profits with a 25% earnings threshold, subsistence losses, and public-use losses), authorizes courts to award fees and costs, and makes liability joint and several except as limited by Civil Code section 1431.2.
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of oil-producing facilities and vessels, lessees and leaseholders, insurers and reinsurers, commercial and subsistence fishers and aquaculture operators, coastal local governments and state natural resource trustees involved in cleanup and damage claims.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts financial risk toward responsible parties and their insurers, tightens proof obligations and discovery (chemical testing and sample production), and creates clearer statutory paths for coastal communities and resource users to recover economic and natural resource losses after a spill.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 839 replaces a fault-based regime for many spill-related claims with absolute liability: if a court deems a party a “responsible party” as defined in existing law, that party is strictly liable for damages that arise out of or are caused by a spill. The statute lists a short set of exceptions (acts of war, certain catastrophic natural disasters, plaintiff’s own sole negligence, third‑party criminal acts, natural seepage, and permitted discharges) but makes those defenses unavailable if the responsible party fails to comply with specific statutory response and planning duties.
The bill carefully defines what counts as recoverable damages. It includes all response and removal costs incurred under the California oil spill contingency plan, property damage and economic losses tied to ownership or leasehold interests, natural resource injury recoverable by governmental trustees, subsistence-use losses, diminished tax/royalty/rent receipts, and lost profits or impaired earning capacity where the claimant derives at least 25% of earnings from the activities affected (or 25% during a relevant season for seasonal activities).
The state, counties, cities, and districts may sue for public losses such as loss of public beach use.On proof and procedure, SB 839 places the production burden for chemical or scientific test results on the defendant to show whether their produced or controlled substances match the contaminant that caused the injury, with court authority to compel sample exchanges and to join other potentially responsible parties. Courts may award reasonable suit costs, attorney fees, and necessary expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs; prevailing defendants get fees only on a finding that the plaintiff sued in bad faith or for harassment.
The statute preserves other legal claims (including common law) but bars duplicate recoveries for the same loss under this section and maintains that payments to cover liabilities do not reduce royalties, rents, or net profits owed to governments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 839 makes a responsible party absolutely liable for spill-related damages ‘without regard to fault,’ subject only to a short list of statutory exceptions.
The statute removes the listed defenses if the responsible party fails to comply with specified response and planning duties (Sections 8670.25, 8670.25.5, 8670.27, 8670.62).
Recoverable economic losses include lost profits or impaired earnings only where the claimant derives at least 25% of earnings from the affected activities (or 25% during the applicable season for seasonal work).
The defendant bears the burden to produce chemical or scientific test results matching substances the defendant controls to the contaminant that caused damage, and the court can compel sample production and join other potentially responsible parties.
Liability is generally joint and several (with an exception pointing to Civil Code §1431.2), and courts may award plaintiffs reasonable costs, attorney’s fees, and expert fees; prevailing defendants get fees only on a bad‑faith finding.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Absolute liability for responsible parties
This subsection imposes strict (absolute) liability on any party that qualifies as a responsible party under Section 8670.3 for damages caused by a spill. Practically, the provision removes the need for plaintiffs to prove fault; once a defendant is identified as a responsible party and causation is established, liability attaches unless a listed exception applies.
Enumerated defenses and compliance-based disqualification
Subdivision (b) lists six narrow defenses (acts of war, certain catastrophic natural disasters, plaintiff’s sole negligence, third‑party criminal acts, natural seepage, and authorized discharges). Subdivision (c) conditions the availability of those defenses on compliance with specified response and planning statutes — if a responsible party failed to meet those statutory duties (Sections 8670.25, 8670.25.5, 8670.27, 8670.62), it cannot invoke the defenses. That creates a direct enforcement lever: regulatory noncompliance converts otherwise available defenses into non-starters in civil suits.
Joinder, testing, and evidentiary burdens
Subdivision (d) authorizes courts to join additional potentially responsible parties on motion, making multi-party litigation and contribution claims administratively cleaner. Subdivision (e) allocates evidentiary burdens for chemical and scientific testing: defendants must produce test results of substances they produced or controlled that could match the pollutant, and parties must provide samples upon request. The statute carves out impossibility excuses where samples are unavailable or reliable tests do not exist, but otherwise shifts early forensic work onto defendants.
Fees, costs, and preservation of other causes of action
Subdivision (f) gives courts discretion to award plaintiffs reasonable costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert costs, and to award fees to defendants only where the plaintiff acted in bad faith. Subdivision (g) preserves other claims (including common-law causes) but prevents double recovery for the same loss and clarifies that subdivision (b)’s defenses do not create new defenses for other claims — it’s a careful coexistence clause to avoid duplicative remedies.
Damages, joint-and-several liability, and procedural limits
Subdivision (h) enumerates recoverable damages with practical measurement rules (e.g., restoration cost methods and the 25% earnings threshold for lost profits). Subdivision (i) declares liability joint and several except as provided in Civil Code §1431.2. Subsections (j)–(m) add limits and procedures: the section does not supplant personal injury/wrongful death claims, payments for liabilities do not reduce public royalties/rents, the state may sue on behalf of private claimants (unless they ask it not to), and the definition point for “vessels” is tied to the Harbors and Navigation Code.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial and subsistence fishers and aquaculture operators — the statute creates a clearer path to recover lost profits, seasonally measured earnings, and subsistence-use losses following a spill, with explicit thresholds to qualify for economic loss claims.
- Local governments and state natural resource trustees — the bill authorizes recovery of response and removal costs and loss of public-use values (beaches, public resources), strengthening municipal and trustee claims for remediation and habitat restoration.
- Property owners and leaseholders on affected shorelines — the statute expressly allows recovery for property injury and related economic losses tied to ownership or leasehold interests, improving prospects for prompt compensation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Oil operators, vessel owners, and leaseholders deemed responsible parties — they face strict liability exposure for cleanup, natural resource damages, lost profits, and public-use losses, and may be unable to invoke routine defenses if they failed to meet statutory planning/response duties.
- Insurers and reinsurers — stricter liability and expanded recoverable categories increase potential claims frequency and severity, likely affecting premiums, coverage disputes, and subrogation activity.
- State and local courts and agencies — increased joinder, evidentiary testing, and multi-party litigation could raise administrative burdens and require technical capacity for forensic matching, valuation of natural resource damages, and complex allocation proceedings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades easier, more certain compensation for victims and stronger deterrence against spills on the one hand, for increased financial and evidentiary burdens on operators, insurers, and courts on the other — a classic choice between maximizing recovery and ensuring fair, proportionate allocation of liability when causation or contribution is uncertain.
SB 839 pushes California toward a strict-liability regime that simplifies recovery for claimants but raises hard implementation questions. Shifting the evidentiary burden to defendants to produce chemical match tests speeds causation disputes toward scientific proof, but it presumes availability of representative samples and reliable forensic methods.
Where samples are absent or testing techniques are underdeveloped, courts will face contested disputes over admissibility, proof gaps, and whether impossibility excuses apply. That creates litigation incentives both to litigate causation aggressively and to control or preserve physical evidence after a spill.
Joint-and-several liability and the 25% earnings threshold for lost-profit claims create allocation and valuation challenges. When multiple parties may have contributed to a spill, joint-and-several exposure can prompt contribution suits among co-defendants and settlement pressure on smaller operators.
The 25% rule helps limit speculative claims but requires claimants to document income sources and seasonal earnings in fine detail, which may be administratively burdensome. Finally, the statute preserves but limits other causes of action and says payments won’t reduce public royalties, but it leaves open friction points with federal regimes (like the Oil Pollution Act) and with private settlements that resolve some but not all damage categories.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.