Opinion ID: 2614721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: telephone service

Text: When a disgruntled phone subscriber seeks to recover damages for inadequate telephone service which is common to the public, we believe that the complaint may properly be referred to the Public Utilities Commission for exercise of primary jurisdiction. [19] Pursuant to its authority to prescribe just and reasonable standards . . and practices to be observed in furnishing services and facilities, [20] and its authority to hear complaints, [21] the Commission may determine (find) whether the public utility's service or facilities meet the Commission's standards of reasonableness and adequacy. Such findings, of course, may be appealed to the superior court for review in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, but the initial determination should be made by the Commission. [22] When, however, a phone customer alleges that he has suffered from acts or omissions of the utility which result in inadequate service which is different from that provided to the public as a whole, the complaint should be handled as a traditional common law action, and the superior court should determine the issues in accordance with settled principles of tort liability. In this case, Jeffries' only allegation of a particular invasion of his individual interests was contained in Count I, which has been settled by the parties. As we read Jeffries' complaint, all allegations of Glacier State's negligent or willful conduct contained in Count II would have affected the public as a whole. [23] Thus, the task remaining before the superior court is that of reviewing the Commission's findings and conclusions in accordance with the procedures specified in AS 44.62.570. [24]