In re Complaints of Lycourt-Donovan v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 73
Ohio2017Background
- In May–June 2012 Columbia Gas responded to reports of dead vegetation and gas odors at homes on Oakside Road (Toledo) and detected "stray gas" (methane) around multiple foundations at flammable concentrations; testing showed the gas did not match Columbia’s system gas.
- Columbia Gas cut natural-gas service to affected homes for safety, notified local and state agencies (Toledo Fire Dept., Ohio EPA, PUCO), and conducted additional testing and door-to-door outreach; it stated it would restore service once remediation showed conditions were safe.
- Columbia disconnected the Oakside Road main and removed customer accounts, but maintained it could reconnect lines and repeatedly communicated that service would be restored after remediation and official sign-off.
- Homeowners (Lycourt-Donovan, Seneca Builders, Roth/R&P) filed consolidated PUCO complaints alleging abandonment and inadequate/discriminatory service; PUCO held a three-day hearing.
- PUCO found: Columbia did not violate complaint-handling rules, did not unlawfully abandon service, did not provide inadequate or discriminatory service, but acted unreasonably in failing initially to articulate a reconnection standard; on rehearing PUCO set reconnection standard at 0% stray gas (prior suggested 4%).
- The homeowners appealed; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed PUCO’s orders, rejecting claims that Columbia unlawfully abandoned service or furnished inadequate service, and emphasizing safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Columbia’s discontinuation constituted unlawful abandonment under R.C. 4905.20–.21 | Homeowners: Columbia effectively abandoned service and should have filed an abandonment application | Columbia: Action was safety-driven, intended to be temporary, and Columbia consistently stated intent to restore service upon remediation | Court: No unlawful abandonment—Columbia intended to restore service; safety exception and agency rules support disconnecting until hazard abated |
| Whether Columbia furnished inadequate service under R.C. 4905.22 | Homeowners: Unauthorized abandonment and unreasonable communication of reconnection criteria equate to inadequate service | Columbia: Disconnection was lawful safety measure; PUCO’s factors show service was not inadequate | Court: PUCO reasonably applied factors (number, severity, duration, cause) and concluded service was not legally inadequate |
| Whether homeowners forfeited arguments on abandonment or inadequate service by failing to raise them below | Columbia argued forfeiture; PUCO found issues were raised and contested | Homeowners: complaints and hearing addressed abandonment and adequacy; PUCO considered them | Court: Issues were timely and properly before the court; no forfeiture for principal claims |
| Whether PUCO’s reconnection standard and burden allocation were improper | Homeowners: PUCO shifted burden to them and set an impossible 0% reconnection standard | PUCO/Columbia: Standard reflects safety priority; complaint proceeding places burden on complainants | Court: Burden-allocation claim forfeited on rehearing; PUCO permissibly prioritized safety and set standard on rehearing; homeowners did not preserve a challenge to the 0% standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 820 N.E.2d 921 (2004) (appellate review standard for PUCO factual findings)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (Miller Act prevents termination of service based on utility whim)
- Fulmer v. Insura Property & Cas. Co., 760 N.E.2d 392 (2002) (definition of "abandon")
- Ohio Edison Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 678 N.E.2d 922 (1997) (court’s legal-review authority and agency deference)
- Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm., 78 N.E.2d 890 (1948) (PUCO broad authority to act for safety)
- Util. Serv. Partners, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 921 N.E.2d 1038 (2009) (recognition of natural gas hazards)
- Luntz Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 684 N.E.2d 43 (1997) (deference to PUCO where record contains probative evidence)
- Cruz v. Testa, 41 N.E.3d 1213 (2015) (notice-of-appeal sufficiency judged by context)