Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
2011 IL 110166
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Storms on August 23, 2007 caused widespread ComEd outages affecting plaintiffs and others.
- Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging negligence and multiple statutory breaches under the Public Utilities Act.
- The circuit court dismissed Counts III–IV of the first amended complaint and later Counts I–V of subsequent amendments were dismissed or struck.
- Appellate Court affirmed, holding the remedies sought implicated the Illinois Commerce Commission (the Commission) and/or were barred by tariffs.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address (i) jurisdiction over damages claims and (ii) life-support registry/Consumer Fraud Act claims, and whether 16-125 remedies may be filed in circuit court.
- The opinion concludes that damages-related relief tied to utility service is within the Commission’s reparations jurisdiction and that section 16-125 remedies are exclusive to the Commission; life-support and Consumer Fraud Act claims fail; and the denial of a fourth amendment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do damages claims fall within the Commission’s reparations jurisdiction? | Plaintiffs argue damages are civil, not reparations, and belong in circuit court. | Defendants contend damages for service inadequacy are reparations under the Act and reserved for the Commission. | Damages claims implicating service adequacy are reparations within the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Is the Life Support Registry/priority restoration claim cognizable under the Consumer Fraud Act? | Plaintiffs contend failure to prioritize life-support registry customers violated 8-204 and policy. | Defendant argues no duty to grant priority; registry does not create a public policy violation. | Consumer Fraud Act claim fails; no duty to prioritize life-support customers is imposed. |
| Does section 16-125 preclude circuit court action for damages, requiring exclusive Commission action? | Section 16-125 allows damages remedies to be pursued; circuit court may entertain claims. | Section 16-125(h) true reading requires exclusive Commission jurisdiction for damages; court action barred. | Section 16-125 damages remedies are exclusive to the Commission; circuit court lacked jurisdiction for fourth amended complaint. |
| Were the motions to dismiss properly denied from amending the complaint to file a fourth time? | Plaintiffs contend amendment would cure pleading defects. | Court rejected amendment as jurisdictionally improper under 16-125 and tariff limits. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file fourth amended complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Apple River v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 18 Ill. 2d 518 (1960) (Commission balances rates and services; services must be adequate and just)
- Illinois Bell Switching Station Litigation, 161 Ill. 2d 233 (1994) (Tariff limits liability for interruptions; repair of service is within tariff framework)
- Village of Deerfield v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 399 Ill. App. 3d 84 (2009) (Appellate court held circuit court had jurisdiction but Commission primary jurisdiction; later overruled portions regarding reparations)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (2004) (Tariffs control where addressed; regulated utility liability framework)
- Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 304 Ill. 312 (1922) (Preclusion of lawsuit before Commission for reparations)
- Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 186 Ill. 2d 198 (1999) (Court discussed scope of circuit court versus Commission in utility claims)