Opinion ID: 2085545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of the Lawsuit

Text: The majority correctly states that `all state law causes of action are not necessarily precluded' by the existence of a filed and approved tariff. 211 Ill.2d at 58, 284 Ill.Dec. at 319, 809 N.E.2d at 1265, quoting Pink Dot, Inc. v. Teleport Communications Group, 89 Cal.App.4th 407, 416, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 392, 398 (2001). The nature of a lawsuit may place it outside the scope of the tariff's limitation of liability provisions. Thus, although Pink Dot acknowledged that Teleport's liability for gross negligence was limited by the applicable tariff, Pink Dot argued that its claims against Teleport for breach of contract, fraud, willful misconduct, intentional interference with economic relations, and unfair competition were not barred. Pink Dot, 89 Cal. App.4th at 412, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d at 395. This argument was supported by a state statute providing that `All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of the law, whether willful or negligent, are against the public policy of the law.' Pink Dot, 89 Cal.App.4th at 413-14, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d at 396, quoting Cal. Civ.Code  1668 (1994). Further, the Teleport's tariff was silent as to the required liability for any willful misconduct, fraud, or violations of law, although it did contain clauses intended to limit [its] liability to its customers for damages caused by its conduct. Pink Dot, 89 Cal.App.4th at 414, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d at 396-97. In the end, Pink Dot stands for the unremarkable proposition that when a state statute expressly precludes such a limit, a tariff's $10,000 limit on liability cannot eliminate [the utility's] liability for willful misconduct, fraud or violations of law by merely omitting the acknowledgment of such liability from its tariff. Pink Dot, 89 Cal. App.4th at 414, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d at 397. In Adamson v. WorldCom Communications, Inc., 190 Or.App. 215, 78 P.3d 577 (2003) (quoted in 211 Ill.2d at 58, 284 Ill.Dec. at 319, 809 N.E.2d at 1265), plaintiff's claim for unfair trade practices was not barred where the tariff limited the defendant's liability `unless such damages are a result of Company's willful misconduct.'  Adamson, 190 Or.App. at 222, 78 P.3d at 582. The tariff at issue in the present case expressly states that NI-Gas assumes no responsibility in connection with the installation, maintenance or operation of the customer's equipment. Plaintiff has not cited either a state statute (as in Pink Dot ) or language of the tariff (as in Adamson ) that precludes the limitation of liability claimed by NI-Gas. Nor has she brought a claim for fraud, negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the utility, or other tortious conduct of the sort that would place it outside the scope of the limitation of liability clause of the tariff. Thus, the duty claimed by plaintiff must be found to exist on the basis of the language of the tariff, or not at all.