Siewert v. Northern States Power Co., 793 N.W.2d 272

NSP, Minnesota electric utility, faced claims for damages and injunctive relief from stray voltage affecting Siewerts’ dairy farm.
Siewerts alleged negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and trespass due to NSP’s multi-grounded wye distribution system.
NSP sought summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine, primary jurisdiction doctrine, and Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (statute of repose).
District court largely denied summary judgment; certified these questions to the court of appeals as important and doubtful.
Court of Appeals held: filed rate doctrine bars injunctive relief but not monetary damages; primary jurisdiction does not bar damages; statute of repose does not bar negligence, nuisance, or strict liability claims.
Minn. Supreme Court affirmed as to monetary damages but reversed as to injunctive relief; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the filed rate doctrine bar injunctive relief in nuisance from stray voltage?	Siewerts claim relief abating nuisance; relief could be framed without adding tariff terms.	Injunctive relief to stop stray voltage alters tariff terms and implicates rate regulation.	No; injunctive relief to abate nuisance is not barred.
Does the filed rate doctrine bar damages for stray voltage harms?	Damages flow from tortious conduct independent of tariff terms.	Damages would require altering services beyond tariff and thus are barred.	Damages claims are not barred.
Does the primary jurisdiction doctrine preclude judicial consideration of the claims?	MPUC expertise governs tariffs and related issues; court should defer.	Primary jurisdiction should apply to tariff interpretation and rate issues; common law tort claims are inherently judicial.	No; primary jurisdiction does not preclude judicial consideration; claims are inherently judicial.
Is any claim barred by the statute of repose for improvements to real property?	Claims arise from maintenance/operation/inspection; fall within exception.	System is an improvement; repose may bar actions after ten years.	Exception applies; claims may proceed with respect to negligent maintenance, operation, or inspection.

Hoffman v. N. States Power Co., 764 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 2009) (filed rate doctrine applied to bar or limit claims arising from tariff-related disputes)
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 721 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2006) (establishes framework for filed rate doctrine in Minnesota)
Keogh v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1922) (tariff rights cannot be varied or enlarged by contract or tort)
AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1998) (claims not in tariff may be barred if they seek privileges outside tariff; services attached to tariff)
Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 369 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 1985) (MPUC cannot award refunds for damages under common law tort claims)
Schmidt v. N. States Power Co., 742 N.W.2d 294 (Wis. 2007) (Wisconsin refused to bar stray voltage tort claims under filed rate doctrine; discussed restraints)
Aquila, Inc. v. State, 718 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. 2006) (utility system as an improvement to real property; discusses repose and maintenance exception context)
Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2006) (utility anchor considered real property improvement in repose context)
Pac. Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1977) (common-sense interpretation of statute wording under repose analysis)