Yorty v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
79 A.3d 655
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Yorty (an electrician employed by PPL) was injured on Sept. 30, 2008 when a de-energized 500 kV line re-energized by induction from a nearby energized parallel line during repairs. Plaintiffs sued 22 defendants; PJM remained the sole defendant on appeal.
- PJM is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that schedules outages and coordinates grid reliability but does not physically operate or maintain transmission facilities owned by local Transmission Owners (TOs).
- PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (clause 10.2) limits liability for acts/omissions associated with service under the Tariff, except for gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
- The trial court denied PJM’s summary judgment motion, ruling (1) FERC/Tariff immunity was not affirmatively authorized by Congress and (2) whether PJM’s conduct amounted to gross negligence was a jury question.
- PJM obtained a FERC declaratory order finding the Tariff precluded ordinary negligence claims against PJM for these scheduling/approval functions and that physical safety/maintenance is the TOs’ responsibility; FERC left open liability for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or actions beyond Tariff duties.
- The appellate court held the Tariff (and FERC’s interpretation) preempts state-law negligence claims as to PJM’s Tariff functions, and that the complaint did not plead facts that could support gross negligence by PJM; thus summary judgment for PJM should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PJM is immune from negligence claims under its FERC-approved Tariff (preemption) | Yorty: state-law negligence claim may proceed; Tariff cannot bar suit absent express congressional authorization | PJM: Tariff is federal law that immunizes PJM from ordinary negligence for acts under the Tariff | Tariff is equivalent to federal regulation and preempts state negligence claims for PJM’s Tariff functions; immunity applies to ordinary negligence |
| Scope of PJM duties (scheduling vs. physical control) | Yorty: PJM had duties that could include preventing parallel-line induced re-energization | PJM: PJM’s role is scheduling/planning only; physical safety and maintenance are TO responsibilities | FERC (and court) found PJM lacks direct physical control; responsibilities for safety/maintenance rest with TOs; PJM’s actions here were Tariff functions |
| Appealability of denial of summary judgment (collateral order) | Yorty: interlocutory, not appealable | PJM: immunity question is separable, important, and would be irreparably lost if review delayed | Collateral order doctrine applies; interlocutory appeal permitted because immunity issue is separable, important, and would cause irreparable burden if delayed |
| Sufficiency of pleading gross negligence against PJM | Yorty: complaint includes a catchall allegation of gross negligence | PJM: complaint does not allege facts showing grossly deviant conduct within PJM’s Tariff duties | Court: complaint did not plead facts that could support gross negligence by PJM given its limited Tariff role; no triable gross-negligence issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006) (collateral-order factors support interlocutory appeal when immunity defense is separable and important)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
- Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (Supremacy Clause and preemption principles)
- City of New York v. F.C.C., 486 U.S. 57 (1988) (agency regulations can preempt state law where within agency’s authority)
- Hovis v. Sunoco, Inc., 64 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standard review)
- Aubrey v. Precision Airmotive LLC, 7 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. 2010) (collateral-order doctrine discussed in interlocutory appeal context)