Opinion ID: 6318059
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Safety of a customer, a PG&E employee,

Text: or the public at large. (emphasis added). Plaintiff argues, however, that a sentence in the first paragraph of Rule 14 contemplates that PG&E remains liable for interruptions in service that result from its own negligence. That sentence reads: PG&E will not be liable for interruption or shortage or insufficiency of supply, or any loss or damage of any kind of character occasioned thereby, if same is caused by inevitable accident, act of God, fire, strikes, riots, war, or any other cause except that arising from its failure to exercise reasonable diligence. (emphasis added). GANTNER V. PG&E 13 Both parties have put forward reasonable interpretations of Rule 14. Under PG&E’s reading, the fourth paragraph precludes liability for any interruption in service if, in PG&E’s opinion, that interruption is necessary to protect the public at large. Under Plaintiff’s reading, the first paragraph of Rule 14 limits PG&E’s disclaimer of liability in the fourth paragraph by stating that PG&E is still liable for an interruption in service—even one that, in PG&E’s opinion, is necessary to protect the public—if PG&E’s negligence caused the interruption. The California Supreme Court has never interpreted Rule 14 or issued an opinion that squarely answers which party’s reading is correct. The California Court of Appeal, adopting a canon of construction from contract law, has held that “if there is an ambiguity in a tariff any doubt in its interpretation is to be resolved in favor of the [nondrafter and against the utility].” Pink Dot, Inc. v. Teleport Commc’ns Grp., 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 392, 397 (Ct. App. 2001) (brackets in original) (quoting Transmix Corp. v. S. Pac. Co., 9 Cal. Rptr. 714, 721 (Ct. App. 1960)). Because tariff rules have “the force and effect of a statute,” Dyke Water Co., 363 P.2d at 337, it is unclear whether this contract-law approach to resolving an ambiguity in Rule 14 is appropriate or whether California law instead would require a court to apply standard principles of statutory construction. The California Supreme Court has never adopted the canon that ambiguities in a tariff rule must be resolved against the utility, and we are not certain whether the Supreme Court would choose to do so. See, e.g., Waters, 523 P.2d at 1166 (“[G]eneral principles which might govern disputes between private parties are not necessarily applicable to disputes with regulated utilities.”). Given that this question of Rule 14’s interpretation implicates the same public policy interests identified in section IV.A and likewise determines whether 14 GANTNER V. PG&E a claim such as Plaintiff’s may proceed, we respectfully certify this question as well.