MCI Communication Servs. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.
2012 Ohio 1700
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- MCI provides nationwide telecommunication services via underground fiber-optic cables; Barrett negligently severed a cable in Sharonville, Ohio in December 2005.
- The severed cable contained 96 glass fibers supporting 19 active transport systems and a redundancy/emergency diversity scheme.
- The cable’s severance affected service for hundreds of customers and potentially reduced overall network capacity; some customers experienced interruptions, while others were rerouted.
- MCI sought damages including $522,594.22 for loss of use of the damaged cable, in addition to repair costs.
- Barrett defended on the theory that loss-of-use damages were inappropriate where MCI could reroute within its redundant network and that MCI failed to prove monetary loss.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Barrett on loss-of-use damages; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCI may recover loss-of-use damages for a negligently severed fiber-optic cable. | MCI contends loss-of-use is recoverable as a compensable loss where the property is repairable; can be measured by substitute-capacity rental or value of use. | Barrett argues loss-of-use is inappropriate here since MCI rerouted traffic within a redundant network and no actual monetary loss or substitute-capacity rental evidence was shown. | Yes on the issue, but the court ultimately held against MCI on the measure, not the entitlement, affirming loss-of-use damages were not recoverable under these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. Tarver, 148 Ohio St. 82 (1947) (loss of use when repairable property; replacement rental cost preferred but not required)
- Mayer v. Cohn, 12 Ohio App. 134 (1919) (loss-of-use measure can be value of use without renting substitute)
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Feldkamp, 19 Ohio App. 421 (1924) (replacement rental cost; market for substitute; value of use when no market exists)
- The Cayuga, 5 F. Cas. 326 (1868) (spare boat doctrine; if no market substitute, use value rather than rental)
- Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States, 287 U.S. 170 (1932) (limits spare-boat reasoning to emergency reserves; windfall avoidance)
- Ohio Power Co. v. Zemelka, 19 Ohio App.2d 213 (1969) (damages for utility facilities; depreciation and reproduction costs used to avoid overcompensation)