Opinion ID: 2636924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jarco's Responsibility for Utility Services

Text: Jarco contends that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that PSC correctly concluded that Jarco was responsible for the utility services at issue. Jarco argues that PSC exceeded its authority when it initially transferred the utility services to Jarco's account on December 21, 1995, and also when it decided to transfer the disputed amount back to Jarco's account after receiving documentation from JaiTire's president supporting the position that Jarco was responsible for the utility services. Jarco's argument that PSC exceeded its authority in initially transferring utility services at the Ivy Street addresses to its account is based on its contention that Balsavage was not authorized to instruct PSC to bill Jarco for the utility services. This is a factual dispute that was resolved by the Commission against Jarco in its Decision Denying Exceptions when it determined that the record . . . includes substantial evidence that Jarco authorized [PSC] to transfer the account for utility services at 4571 and 4591 Ivy Street to Jarco. The Commission found that the evidence established that there was a business relationship between Jarco and JaiTire at the relevant time, that Balsavage was an authorized representative of Jarco when he directed PSC to transfer the utility services to Jarco, and that Jarco had assumed responsibility for the premises at 4571 and 4591 Ivy Street. In addition, Jarco's argument that PSC exceeded its authority by transferring the disputed amount back to its account, after receiving documentation from JaiTire's president, is also based on its position that insufficient evidence existed in the record to support the transfer decision. However, the Commission incorporated the ALJ's findings that Jarco had not provided any evidence that PSC's billing practices were in violation of any law, rule, or tariff or that PSC's reliance on representations made to it was unreasonable. Consequently, the Commission agreed with the ALJ that there was no basis to conclude that PSC improperly billed Jarco for the utility services at issue. As noted above, the findings of the Commission on disputed issues of fact are final and are not subject to judicial review. See § 40-6-115(2). Accordingly, our review here is limited to determining whether the Commission regularly pursued its authority, whether its decision is just and reasonable, and whether its conclusions are in accordance with the evidence. See § 40-6-115(3). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Commission acted pursuant to its authority, that its decision is just and reasonable, and that its conclusions are in accordance with the evidence. We agree with the district court that this case put PSC in the unenviable position of determining which party was responsible for the disputed utility services after their business deal collapsed. In making this determination, the Commission acted pursuant to its authority in reviewing the ALJ's findings that PSC had properly billed Jarco and in incorporating those findings into its decision. The decision to hold Jarco responsible is just and reasonable and in accordance with all of the evidence before the Commission, as noted above. As such, we reject Jarco's argument that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that PSC correctly concluded that Jarco was responsible for the utility services at issue. [5]