Videos by Nicholas Kraus for The New York Times. Photos by Blacki Migliozzi.<\/p>\n
By Blacki Migliozzi<\/a>,\u00a0Rukmini Callimachi<\/a> and K.K. Rebecca Lai<\/a> <\/p>\n Reporters examined dozens of toxicology studies and interviewed homeowners. Mr. Migliozzi spent over 100 hours inside toxic homes, shadowing industrial hygienists and documenting the damage.<\/p>\n June 24, 2025 <\/p>\n At first, the families whose homes were left standing thought they were the fortunate ones. <\/p>\n While their neighbors sifted through the ash and twisted debris left behind by devastating wildfires, they stepped through unbroken doors into living rooms where the throw pillows on the sofa rested exactly as they\u2019d left them. <\/p>\n \u201cRelieved,\u201d some families said. \u201cBlessed,\u201d others said. Just about everyone said, \u201cLucky.\u201d <\/p>\n But weeks later, a troubling realization set in: Their homes may have been damaged in ways that are invisible. <\/p>\n Everyday items become poisons when they are set on fire. A plastic shower rod releases formaldehyde. Burning rubber, whether from a garden hose or a car tire, emits benzene. Polyester, found in fleece jackets and upholstered chairs, unleashes carcinogenic gases. Printers, plasma TVs and LED lights melt into a cloud of cyanide. <\/p>\n Each of these toxic chemicals are known carcinogens or else dangerous to human health, and high exposure has been shown to have severe health consequences, including for American soldiers who were exposed to fumes from burn pits on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and developed bladder<\/a>, lung, testicular and brain cancers<\/a>. <\/p>\n Scientists have found that even those who are far from the source of smoke can be harmed. After 9\/11, residents living within half a mile of the collapsed World Trade Center experienced chronic respiratory illnesses<\/a>, and those as far as 1.5 miles away had elevated rates of cancer<\/a> \u2014 just like the emergency workers at ground zero. <\/p>\n Now, as wildfires become more frequent, researchers are looking harder at what happens when smoke infiltrates a home. What does it do to the people who move back in? <\/p>\n In the aftermath of the 2021 Marshall Fire in Colorado, the most destructive in the state\u2019s history, a study<\/a> found that residents in homes that were as far as two miles from the burn zone reported symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic smoke, including recurring headaches, itchy and runny eyes, a metallic taste in their mouths and a dry cough. <\/p>\n And yet, insurance companies often do not test for toxic substances, according to insurance industry experts, whistle-blowers and homeowners. When they do, they check for a few harmful substances and omit over two dozen others that researchers say can cause lasting harm. Some families who can afford it have taken matters into their own hands, paying out of pocket for private tests with the hopes of being reimbursed later. Other families have had no choice except to return to their homes. <\/p>\n More than 500 people who survived the recent fires in California \u2014 including homeowners and renters whose addresses fall as far as 1.5 miles from the nearest burned structure \u2014 responded to a New York Times questionnaire. A majority of those whose homes were still standing reported that their insurance companies had declined to pay for testing. <\/p>\n Where smoke damage was reported in standing homes <\/p>\n Standing homes with reports of smoke damage<\/p>\n After the Eaton fire, tests found toxic substances in homes up to 1.3 miles outside the public health advisory \u2014 an area defined as 250 yards of a burned structure.<\/p>\n Sources: New York Times insurance questionnaire and Eaton Fire Residents United<\/a>.<\/p>\n Dozens of respondents whose homes were damaged by smoke agreed to share the lab results, allowing The Times to review the toxicology studies for 56 homes \u2014 a total of 122 reports conducted by 64 different companies. <\/p>\n Nearly all showed some level of contamination. A father sent his toddler\u2019s clothes to a lab and discovered that her dress was laced with lead. Comprehensive panels of tests, including swabs of surfaces, slices of furniture and extractions of drywall, showed the presence of a slew of heavy metals, toxic gases and other hazardous substances. <\/p>\n Last month, California\u2019s insurance commissioner launched a task force<\/a> to create statewide rules for handling smoke claims, acknowledging that there is no accepted standard despite back-to-back fires that have decimated communities. <\/p>\n But families say insurance companies have forced them to choose between their health and their finances. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is crazy, and so blatant,\u201d said Melissa Morrow, 51, the mother of two teenage children, whose home in Altadena survived the blaze. \u201cHow do you get to go from being so thankful to wanting your house to burn down?\u201d <\/p>\n Where There Was Fire, There Is Still Smoke <\/p>\n The Morrow family, including Max, 15, Jesse, 51, Stella, 13 and Mel, 51. <\/p>\n Tag Christof for The New York Times<\/p>\n Worried that their five-bedroom home on a street dotted with soaring palm trees might be contaminated \u2014 the flames consumed their deck and melted their pool furniture but did not burn the house \u2014 Ms. Morrow and her husband, Jesse, asked their insurer to do a comprehensive test. <\/p>\n The insurer, Amica Mutual Insurance Company, declined and said it planned to send its own industrial hygienist. A crew sent by the insurer spent a few hours, swabbing 15 surfaces and taking a half dozen samples of the air, according to the report later sent to Ms. Morrow, a TV and film producer. <\/p>\n The insurance crew\u2019s report showed three substances: char, soot and ash. <\/p>\n The insurer advised removing the insulation from the attic, but for the rest of the house, it recommended that the Morrows do little more than cleaning \u2014 the instructions included using a special vacuum and a \u201csoot sponge.\u201d <\/p>\n The couple felt that something was off, so they paid $17,000 to hire their own certified industrial hygienist, Dawn Bolstad-Johnson. The results could not have been more stark: After spending about 10 hours drilling into the walls and furniture, as well as collecting gases suspended in the air, Ms. Bolstad-Johnson\u2019s team had 2,182 data points from hundreds of locations on the property \u2014 enough to determine that the home was contaminated with known carcinogens. <\/p>\n \u201cUnsafe to inhabit,\u201d the 177-page report concluded. <\/p>\n Ms. Bolstad-Johnson recommended that the Morrows wear full-face respirators attached to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear filters, nitrile gloves, shoe covers and disposable coveralls just to step inside their home. <\/p>\n The Morrows would need to remove all the drywall, flooring, insulation and exterior stucco, and replace the cabinetry, the HVAC system and most of the appliances \u2014 a gut renovation. They also were urged to throw away all their furniture, bedding, carpeting, clothes and toys. <\/p>\n Inside one room in the Morrows’ house <\/p>\n Photo by Tag Christof for The New York Times<\/p>\n Except for items made of glass and metal, everything \u2014 from their daughter\u2019s stuffed goose to their son\u2019s \u201cDungeons & Dragons\u201d books \u2014 had to be discarded. The Morrows shared the report with Amica Mutual, which said it wanted to re-enlist its original crew, according to Ms. Morrow. <\/p>\n In an emailed statement, Amica spokesman Brendan Dowding said that he could not comment on specific cases because of privacy concerns, but said the company is committed to handling wildfire claims \u201cpromptly, thoroughly and in good faith.\u201d He explained that remediation typically begins with professional cleaning before moving on to more extensive repairs. <\/p>\n \u201cOftentimes, the cleaning by the qualified professional successfully removes and neutralizes any smoke and soot damage,\u201d he wrote. \u201cHowever, when that is not the case, we then continue the claims adjustment process by determining an alternative method of remediation and repair.\u201d <\/p>\n The family is now staying in a bungalow about 15 minutes south of Altadena. They are continuing to fight with their insurer to pay the estimated $1 million for the renovations recommended in the independent report. <\/p>\n \u2018Smokers\u2019 <\/p>\n State Farm, the largest insurer in California, has its own term for homes like the Morrows\u2019 \u2014 they call them \u201csmokers,\u201d according to Selina and Jay Clark, a husband-and-wife team who worked as third-party adjusters for State Farm. <\/p>\n The Clarks are among five current and former insurance adjusters who described a pattern of delays and denials across the industry going back years. <\/p>\n \u201cThey nickel-and-dimed the homeowners,\u201d said Mr. Clark, 58, who worked for Pilot Catastrophe Services handling claims for State Farm\u2019s Large Loss Unit from 2015 to 2021. <\/p>\n The couple were dismissed by State Farm after challenging what they believed were incorrect payments to policyholders, and they were among a roster of adjusters who submitted written testimony to a congressional hearing investigating the insurance industry last month. <\/p>\n In 2018, after the Woolsey and Camp wildfires in California, Mr. Clark\u2019s estimates for complete tear-outs of contaminated material in two homes he inspected more than doubled the amount owed to the homeowners, from around $150,000 to upward of $300,000, he said. <\/p>\n \u201cEvery time I sent an estimate up for approval, it came back down. They\u2019d ask, \u2018Why remove the insulation?\u2019 And I\u2019d have to write a full report justifying tearing out drywall, doors, baseboards, everything,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n In an email, State Farm said the company has already paid $4.1 billion to their customers in California this year, adding that each claim is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what tools will be used in the recommended remediation steps. <\/p>\n Ryan Mellino, the author of a report<\/a> on how insurance companies restrict payments for smoke damage, said he began seeing the pattern of denial that the Clarks and other adjusters describe about a decade ago. It accelerated in 2017 and 2018, following major wildfires including the Tubbs, Camp and Woolsey fires. Insurance companies, he said, added riders and language in policies to exclude or limit recovery for smoke damage. <\/p>\n More recently, Mr. Mellino, a staff lawyer at the Los Angeles-based Consumer Watchdog, said that the insurers have declined to test for harmful substances, or have limited what they will test for. <\/p>\n In The Times\u2019s questionnaire, 84 percent of respondents whose insurance company sent a contractor to test for contamination reported that they only tested for a handful of toxic substances \u2014 often soot, char and ash. A majority said that the estimate offered by their insurer did not fairly represent what they believed was the actual cost of repairing their homes \u2014 and nearly a quarter said that their insurer\u2019s estimate covered 20 percent or less of what they believed they will need to spend to rebuild or remediate their homes. <\/p>\n Because the damage is invisible to the naked eye, its mere existence becomes \u201clike a battle of the experts,\u201d Mr. Mellino said. <\/p>\n What She Saw in the Smoke <\/p>\n Clockwise: Using an Gasmet F.T.I.R. spectrometer. Taking a drywall sample for cyanide analysis. Using a microscope to visually confirm char and ash. Dawn Bolstad-Johnson sampling a home in the Palisades. Carrying the Gasmet F.T.I.R. spectrometer upstairs. In an attic taking samples in the HVAC system of a home.<\/p>\n Tag Christof for The New York Times<\/p>\n In 2000 \u2014 a year before 9\/11 reset the world\u2019s understanding of airborne hazards \u2014 Ms. Bolstad-Johnson led a study of invisible risks by equipping a group of firefighters with air-monitoring gear. Not only did dangerous levels of toxic gases remain after a fire had been extinguished, but even after smoke dissipated, carcinogens including formaldehyde hung in the air. <\/p>\n Almost a decade later, scientists would find<\/a> that embalmers who use formaldehyde to prepare bodies for burial have elevated levels<\/a> of leukemia. <\/p>\n