2017 Ohio 915
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 2015 Ohio Edison hired Nelson Tree Service to trim trees near its distribution poles; trimming encroached from the utility right-of-way onto Mihiylov’s property, creating a canopy gap.
- Mihiylov sued Ohio Edison and Nelson Tree Service in Akron Municipal Court (small claims) seeking $3,000 for improper trimming.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute fell within the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (PUCO) exclusive jurisdiction; the municipal court denied the motion.
- After a bench trial the municipal court awarded Mihiylov $1,000.
- On appeal, defendants argued PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from a utility’s vegetation-management/right-of-way decisions.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding the trimming dispute falls within PUCO’s exclusive jurisdiction and remanding by instructing the municipal court to follow that judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over utility vegetation/right-of-way disputes | Mihiylov: trimming went beyond right-of-way; this is a tort/property claim for municipal court | Ohio Edison/Nelson: trimming arose from execution of utility vegetation-management/right-of-way plan, so PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction | Court held PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction; municipal court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Corrigan v. Illuminating Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 265 (2009) (adopted two-part test to decide whether PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over utility vegetation/right-of-way actions)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 119 Ohio St.3d 301 (2008) (framed two-part test: whether PUCO expertise is required and whether act is a practice normally authorized to utility)