Opinion ID: 3009746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Need for the PUC's Expertise.

Text: 34 As noted above, issues that implicate a utility's tariff are deemed to special expertise of the PUC. In addition we are guided by Elkin, and DeFra Western Pa. Water Co., 453 A.2d 595, 596 (Pa. 1982). In Elkin, the court hel allegations that Bell negligently failed to furnish the customer reasonable efficient service with respect to three wide-area telephone service (WATS deliberately refused to furnish plaintiff with adequate directory assistanc service, and negligently failed to furnish written telephone numbers for pro customers of plaintiff fell within the PUC's area of expertise. Elkin, 420 377. By contrast, in DeFrancesco the court held that the allegation that fir plaintiff's property because the city water company negligently failed to ma water pressure did not fall within the PUC's expertise and thus its primary The court reasoned: The controversy now before us . . . is not one in which the genera reasonableness, adequacy or sufficiency of a public utility's serv is drawn into question. Resolution of appellant's claims depended upon no rule or regulation predicated on the peculiar expertise o PUC, no agency policy, no question of service or facilities owed t general public, and no particular standard of safety or convenienc articulated by the PUC. . . .Rather, . . . . [r]esolving the essential question of whether the utility failed to perform its mandated duties requires no recondite knowledge or experience and falls within the scope of the ordinary business of our courts. DeFrancesco, 453 A.2d at 597. Courts have routinely looked to Elkin and DeFrancesco to determine if controversy implicated the special competence of the PUC. See Optimum Imag Phila. Elec. Co., 600 A.2d 553, 556-57 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (allegations th violated by the substandard and defective supply of electrical power brought within the primary jurisdiction of the PUC); Ostrov v. I.F.T., Inc., 586 A.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (action did not come within the primary jurisdiction o 35 plaintiff did not contend that medical examination provision of self-insura violated the PUC's rules or regulations governing self-insurance motor carr other PUC rule or regulation for self insurance) Schriner v. Pa. Power & L A.2d 1128, 1130-31 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (citing DeFrancesco the court held of stray voltage depends upon no rule or regulation predicated upon the p expertise of the PUC . . . and thus was not within the primary jurisdiction Morrow v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 479 A.2d 548, 551-52 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) challenge to public utility's rates relating to toll charges and its service regarding deposits held to be within the primary jurisdiction of the PUC). Here, the dispute centers around Bell's performance under its tariff a technical deficiencies that my have existed in the dial tone generated by it That complaint may rise or fall on the issue of the manner in which Bell com obligation under its tariff to provide reasonable, . . . efficient service that can best determine Bell's compliance with that tariff is the PUC. In ad Teleconcepts' allegation of deficient service transcends the present controv least potentially, calls into question the adequacy of Bell's service to the public as Teleconcepts claims that the second dial tone was neither unique t nor COCOT owners. We must therefore be sensitive to the need for uniformity consistency in agency policy, which further suggests that the PUC decide the Teleconcepts' claim initially. See Elkin, 420 A.2d at 377; Ostrov, 586 A.2d (matters involving the general reasonableness or adequacy of a utility's se public are within the primary jurisdiction of the [PUC].).