This bill makes manufacturers of ‘‘critical infrastructure equipment’’ immune from civil suit and liability under both Federal and State law for losses tied to wildfire incidents, unless the plaintiff proves the manufacturer engaged in willful misconduct in the design or production of the equipment. It imports the statutory definitions of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ (USA PATRIOT Act §1016(e)) and ‘‘manufacturer’’ (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 §2220A(a)(2)).
The change narrows the universe of litigable claims after a wildfire by replacing ordinary negligence and other product-liability theories with a single, higher bar: proving willful misconduct in design or production. That shift would materially alter risk allocation across manufacturers, utilities and insurers, and raises immediate questions about scope, burden of proof, and how state causes of action (including inverse condemnation) interact with the statutory immunity.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates statutory immunity for any manufacturer of critical infrastructure equipment against all claims for loss tied to wildfire incidents, unless the plaintiff proves willful misconduct in the design or production of the equipment. It defines ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ and ‘‘manufacturer’’ by reference to two existing federal statutes.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers of equipment used in sectors classed as critical infrastructure (power, communications, water, transportation, etc.), their shareholders and insurers, utilities and operators who install and maintain that equipment, plaintiffs and local governments that currently bring wildfire-related suits, and courts handling those claims.
Why It Matters
By taking ordinary negligence and many strict-liability theories off the table for wildfire-related losses, the bill shifts legal and financial risk away from manufacturers and toward operators, insurers, and public claimants. It also imports external statutory definitions and leaves several key terms and procedural questions undefined, so litigation will likely focus on scope and interpretation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and functional: it grants a sweeping immunity to manufacturers of ‘‘critical infrastructure equipment’’ for any loss linked to wildfire incidents unless a plaintiff proves the manufacturer engaged in willful misconduct in the design or production of that equipment. Rather than listing specific causes of action, it bars liability ‘‘under Federal and State law’’ — a phrasing meant to reach whatever state-law theories plaintiffs might assert after a fire.
Instead of describing who bears the burden in detail, the bill says manufacturers are immune ‘‘absent proof’’ of willful misconduct. That language has two immediate effects.
First, it elevates the defendant-manufacturer's protection by creating a default immunity that plaintiffs must overcome. Second, it confines the surviving claims to a narrow category tied to pre-sale decisions (design/production), leaving post-sale conduct (installation, maintenance, field modifications) outside the explicit exception.The bill does not define ‘‘willful misconduct,’’ nor does it add procedural filters, notice requirements, damage caps, or a retroactivity clause.
It also relies on cross-references to two other statutes for the key terms ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ and ‘‘manufacturer.’’ Because those definitions are incorporated by reference rather than spelled out, the exact population covered will turn on the scope of the two cited statutes and how courts interpret those cross-references in wildfire contexts.Those drafting choices create gaps that courts will have to fill. Expect early litigation contests over (a) whether a particular defendant qualifies as a ‘‘manufacturer’’ under the referenced statute; (b) whether a particular loss ‘‘relates to’’ a wildfire incident under the bill's broad causal language; (c) whether a plaintiff has produced sufficient proof of ‘‘willful misconduct’’ in design or production; and (d) whether the statute displaces state constitutional claims such as inverse condemnation.
The bill's text pushes many of these disputes into judicial interpretation rather than administrative rulemaking or legislative detail.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill immunizes any manufacturer of critical infrastructure equipment from suit and liability under both Federal and State law for losses tied to wildfire incidents.
The only statutory exception allows claims where the plaintiff proves the manufacturer engaged in willful misconduct in the design or production of the equipment.
The bill imports the definition of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ from USA PATRIOT Act §1016(e) and the definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ from CIRCIA §2220A(a)(2), rather than defining those terms within the bill itself.
The immunity applies to claims ‘‘caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from wildfire incidents,’’ language that reaches a broad range of direct and indirect loss theories.
The statute does not define ‘‘willful misconduct,’’ impose procedural requirements (notice, exhaustion, or damage caps), or address retroactivity, leaving major implementation questions unresolved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the Act's name: ‘‘Limiting Liability for Critical Infrastructure Manufacturers Act.’
Congressional finding
Contains a single finding that manufacturing critical infrastructure is necessary to national resilience and cites PPD–21. This is boilerplate legislative framing; it does not create regulatory obligations or limit judicial interpretation, but signals the policy rationale lawmakers are asserting to justify statutory immunity.
Primary immunity rule
Grants immunity from suit and liability under federal and state law for ‘‘any manufacturer of critical infrastructure equipment’’ for all claims linked to wildfire incidents, unless the plaintiff proves willful misconduct in design or production. Practically, this converts many product-liability and negligence actions into uphill fights for plaintiffs: defendants will be able to move early to dismiss or for summary judgment on statutory-immunity grounds, and trials will often hinge on whether the plaintiff can show conduct rising to ‘‘willful misconduct.’’
Definition—critical infrastructure
Incorporates the Patriot Act’s definition of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ (42 U.S.C. 5195(e)) by reference. Because the bill does not restate the sectors or examples, coverage will track the scope of that prior statute—meaning the immunity intentionally focuses on equipment tied to sectors Congress previously identified as critical (energy, water, communications, transportation, etc.).
Definition—manufacturer
Defines ‘‘manufacturer’’ by reference to the definition used in the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA §2220A(a)(2)). That pulls the bill’s covered entities into a preexisting statutory classification—likely aligning protection with entities in the critical manufacturing sector—but leaves open edge cases (component suppliers, contract manufacturers, foreign firms) that will require statutory and factual interpretation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- Manufacturers of critical-infrastructure equipment: The bill removes ordinary exposure to negligence and many product-liability claims arising from wildfires, lowering litigation risk and liability reserves.
- Shareholders and lenders of covered manufacturers: Reduced legal exposure can improve balance-sheet stability and credit metrics for firms that qualify as ‘‘manufacturers’’ under the referenced statute.
- Suppliers and upstream contractors in the critical manufacturing sector: By insulating manufacturers, the bill may reduce contractual indemnity disputes and cascade pressure to shift liability downstream.
- Utilities and infrastructure operators (indirectly): Operators that rely on covered equipment could face fewer claims against suppliers and therefore stronger negotiating positions in procurement and settlement talks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Wildfire victims and property owners: The immunity narrows recovery paths by removing many state-law claims, potentially forcing plaintiffs to seek compensation from operators, insurers, or public funds instead of manufacturers.
- State and local governments: Municipalities that currently use litigation (including inverse condemnation) to allocate wildfire losses may see diminished recourse, increasing fiscal exposure for emergency response and rebuilding.
- Insurers—especially property and utility insurers: The shift in who is legally responsible may change claim patterns and pricing; insurers could end up covering losses formerly recovered from manufacturers or facing litigation over allocation.
- Courts and litigators: Early-stage dispositive-motion litigation is likely to increase as parties litigate statutory scope, definitions imported by reference, and what qualifies as ‘‘willful misconduct,’’ producing complex procedural records.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing industrial stability against accountability: the bill protects manufacturers to preserve supply chains and encourage production of infrastructure equipment, but doing so reduces private remedies and bluntly shifts financial and safety incentives away from manufacturers—potentially increasing moral hazard and leaving wildfire victims and local governments to shoulder more risk.
The bill resolves one problem—limiting manufacturer exposure after wildfire losses—by creating another: it delegates difficult boundary work to judges and litigants. Key implementation questions are left unanswered.
Which entities qualify as ‘‘manufacturers’’ will depend on the scope of the external statutory reference; component makers, designers, or foreign manufacturers could be litigated into or out of coverage. The bill’s causation language—‘‘caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from’’—is deliberately broad and could sweep in secondary economic harms, supply-chain losses, and claims that currently get litigated under state doctrines.
The willful-misconduct carve-out narrows surviving claims to design-and-production misconduct, excluding post-sale conduct like installation, maintenance, or field repairs from the express exception. That creates an odd split: a poorly designed transformer might be actionable if design misconduct is proven, but a properly designed piece of equipment that is misused, altered, or poorly maintained in the field could leave victims without a manufacturer defendant under this statute.
The bill also omits any statutory definition of ‘‘willful misconduct’’ or burden-of-proof mechanics, so parties will fight about evidentiary standards and who carries which burdens at which stages. Finally, because the statute purports to bar state-law claims, it invites constitutional and preemption litigation over whether Congress can displace state causes of action (including state constitutional inverse-condemnation claims) and how that displacement interacts with state public-utility regulatory regimes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.