Corder v. Ohio Edison, Co., 2019 Ohio 2639

Appellants (Craig, Jackie, and Scott Corder) own land crossed by three 1948 electric transmission easements held by Ohio Edison; easements grant the utility the right to “cut, trim and remove … underbrush or other obstructions as in the judgment of [Ohio Edison] may interfere with or endanger said structures, wires or appurtenances, or their operation.”
Ohio Edison notified the Corders in 2017 it planned to apply EPA-registered herbicide to control incompatible vegetation under a double-circuit 138 kV transmission line; the Corders sued for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to bar herbicide application.
Ohio Edison maintains a Transmission Vegetation Management (TVM) Program mandated by PUCO, NERC/FERC, and ANSI standards; its Program specifies herbicide as the method for removing incompatible vegetation ≤6 inches DBH and aims to eliminate vegetation that threatens clearances and reliability.
Expert evidence (arborist and agronomic consultant) supported Ohio Edison’s view that herbicide is necessary, safe, and consistent with industry/PUCO-regulated practices; prior non-chemical cutting left resprouts that now require herbicide to control.
The trial court sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding PUCO had exclusive jurisdiction; the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the term “remove” in the easements is ambiguous and so the common pleas court must interpret the easements first.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Corder)	Defendant's Argument (Ohio Edison)	Held
Does PUCO have exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute?	Court of common pleas can decide because the action seeks interpretation of easement language (contract) not PUCO-regulated service practices.	PUCO’s administrative expertise and regulations govern vegetation control methods; the dispute relates to utility service and thus is under PUCO exclusive jurisdiction.	Court of appeals: Because interpretation of the easement term “remove” is required (it is ambiguous), this is a contract question for the trial court; if trial court later finds easement authorizes herbicide, PUCO would then have jurisdiction over reasonableness.
Does the easement’s word “remove” unambiguously authorize herbicide use?	“Remove” should be read in its ordinary meaning (take away) and, given contemporaneous practice, did not necessarily include herbicide in 1948; thus herbicide is not clearly authorized.	“Remove” is broad and permits any reasonable means (including herbicide) to prevent interference with lines; vegetation management practices are within utility discretion and PUCO oversight.	Court of appeals: The punctuation and phrase structure make “remove” susceptible to multiple meanings; it is ambiguous, so extrinsic evidence and trial-court interpretation are appropriate.

Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1991) (PUCO created to regulate public utilities; scope of statutory jurisdiction discussed)
State ex rel. N. Ohio Tel. Co. v. Winter, 23 Ohio St.2d 6 (Ohio 1970) (PUCO jurisdiction described as exclusive and comprehensive)
State ex rel. Ohio Edison Co. v. Shaker, 68 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 1994) (PUCO jurisdiction does not eliminate courts’ authority over pure tort/contract claims)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 119 Ohio St.3d 301 (Ohio 2008) (two-part test: PUCO expertise required and act is a practice normally authorized)
Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265 (Ohio 2009) (challenge to utility vegetation-management decision falls under PUCO jurisdiction when easement plainly grants right to remove trees)
Dayton Communications Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 64 Ohio St.2d 302 (Ohio 1980) (PUCO lacks judicial power to adjudicate property-right disputes)