DIFFERENT CASE, DIFFERENT RESULT ?

While some have said that the Law is a seamless web, at times it may look like a seemless web. In my post for January 17, 2010, I discussed a recent opinion of the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District in The Village of Deerfield v. Commonwealth Edison Company. That case involved claims for recovery of damages allegedly resulting from power outages. The Court applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to refer the issues of quality of service to the Illinois Commerce Commission, while retaining jurisdiction over the damage claims which were stayed pending the Commission adjudication of the service issues.

Now, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District has declined to follow the Deerfield decision in a similar case and has reached an apparent different conclusion. Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Company, No. 1-09-0849 (1st Dist. February 26, 2010).

Residents sued for damages allegedly resulting from power outages during storms. They alleged, among other things, that Edison failed to have infrastructure to prevent controllable outages and failed to respond on a timely manner to outages. They recited alleged damages such as spoiled food and water damage to walls, furniture, appliances, etc.

The Court noted that the Illinois Commerce Commission has general supervision over regulated public utilities and exclusive jurisdiction over claims that rates are excessive or unjustly discriminatory. The Court then found that the complaint seeks an adjudication of Edison's level of service and response to outages, issues properly within Commission, not Court, jurisdiction. The Court said that the complaint pertains to rates because it concerns claims that Edison allegedly provided inadequate or unreliable service, that the level of service and restoration efforts were substandard. The Court noted that rates were involved because the Commission could find that the rates were excessive for the service provided or may need to be increased to provide levels of service sought by the complainants.

The Court expressly declined to follow the Second District Appellate Court in the Deerfield case for the reason that it found, in Sheffler, that the complaint implicates rates, which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. Thus, the Court upheld dismissal of the court case.

Generally, the decisions of one District Appellate Court are not binding on an Appellate Court in another District. At some point in time, the Illinois Supreme Court may have the opportunity to resolve differing Appellate Court decisions.

However, one may question whether the different conclusions reached in the Deerfield and Sheffler cases actually are a difference. In either case, the matter is to be referred to the Commerce Commission for adjudication of service issues. If the Commission were to find that service is satisfactory or conclude the service claims were without merit, claims for damages likely would be moot in either case, assuming the Commission decision would be upheld on any appeal.