The August 2023 Maui wildfires devastated Lahaina and surrounding areas, destroying homes and businesses, disrupting travel, and causing injuries and loss of life. In the aftermath, attention quickly focused on whether a mix of factors—such as utility equipment, vegetation management, communications infrastructure, land stewardship, and emergency response—may have contributed to the fires’ ignition and rapid spread. That backdrop set the stage for a sweeping class action settlement involving Hawaiian Electric and several public and private entities, creating a $4.04 billion pool intended to compensate a wide range of people affected in and near the burn areas, from property owners and renters to workers, visitors with canceled trips, and families of those killed or injured. The lawsuit was filed to consolidate many claims into a single process alleging these defendants bore responsibility for wildfire-related damages, even as they denied wrongdoing. Its significance lies not just in the headline number, but in how the settlement is structured: only $135 million is set aside for class members who did not hire their own attorney, while most of the money is reserved for an individual settlement track for represented claimants—highlighting the complex, individualized nature of wildfire losses and the legal strategy differences between class participation and separate representation. Like other major mass-disaster resolutions, the settlement also reflects practical realities of litigation risk and time: defendants often choose to pay to avoid years of trials and appeals, while victims gain a clearer path to compensation, albeit with documentation requirements, allocation formulas, and the possibility that payments are prorated after fees and administrative costs. More broadly, the Maui settlement fits into a growing pattern of wildfire litigation in the U.S., where utilities and land managers face claims that infrastructure hardening, line maintenance, vegetation clearance, and shutoff policies were insufficient for extreme fire weather. Industry context matters here: electric utilities operate under safety and reliability obligations overseen by state regulators, and wildfire risk has pushed new standards around inspection cycles, grid “hardening,” and emergency de-energization, alongside scrutiny of coordination with local government and telecom providers during evacuations. Similar cases on the mainland—particularly in the West—have shown how catastrophic fire events can reshape utility balance sheets, accelerate regulatory reforms, and influence how communities and insurers price and manage the escalating risk of climate-driven disasters.