Court Opinion

ID: 9595708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:48.062583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:30.339624
License: Public Domain

GARRETT, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
On June 6,1988 Margaret Fent and Jerry Fent (Appellants) reported a gas leak in the backyard of their residence to Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG). ONG is a regulated public utility that sells natural gas to customers, including residential customers such as Appellants. The gas leak was located between the gas meter, which was located in the basement of Appellants’ residence, and the utility easement located behind Appellants’ home. The easement is an area used, inter alia, for gas pipelines and meters.
Because of the magnitude of the leak, the meter was removed from the basement and gas service was terminated. ONG ad*1149vised Appellants that the gas line between the residence and the easement would need to be repaired, at Appellants’ expense, and approved by city inspectors before gas service would be restored.
Appellants replaced the gas line. It was inspected and approved. A new gas meter was placed in the easement behind the residence. Appellants then sought reimbursement from ONG for the expense of replacing the line. Upon ONG’s refusal to reimburse, Appellants commenced this action in district court as a class action to recover the costs. [There has been no compliance with 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2023 relating to class actions.] ONG moved to dismiss on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure of Appellants to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion to dismiss was sustained. Appellants filed an amended petition and the action was again dismissed on the same grounds. Appellants did not proceed against ONG in the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission regulates public utilities such as ONG and is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction with powers conferred by the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 9, § 18, and by statute, 17 O.S.1981 §§ 151-155. As set out in 17 O.S.1981 § 152:
The Commission shall have general supervision over all public utilities, with power to ... prescribe rules, requirements and regulations, affecting their services, operation, and the management and conduct of their business.... It shall have full visitorial and inquisitorial security and accommodation afforded by their service, but also with respect to their compliance with the provisions of this act [§§ 151-155] and with the Constitution and laws of this state, and with the orders of the Commission.
The Corporation Commission may not award money damages. Lear Petroleum Corp. v. Seneca Oil Co., 590 P.2d 670 (Okl.1979). It does however have jurisdiction of controversies between the public utility and its patrons. Chicago R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State, 158 Okl. 57, 12 P.2d 494 (1932). In Pelican Production Corp. v. Wishbone Oil & Gas, Inc., 746 P.2d 209 (Okl.App.1987), the Court held that the Corporation Commission has sole authority to adjust equities and to protect correlative rights of interested parties. While that case dealt with oil and gas matters, the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission over public utilities is analogous and derived from the same source. The Pelican court held that a Corporation Commission determination is prerequisite to an action for money damages in the district court.
In this matter, the threshold question is: “Who is responsible for the pipeline across Appellants’ backyard from the easement to the residence?” This is a controversy between a regulated utility and its patron. Thus, original jurisdiction is vested in the Corporation Commission. Appellants may be correct (in this case) in their contention that ONG was, and is responsible for repair and replacement of the old pipeline and connecting it to their line in the basement, because the meter was there. In the future, ONG may be correct in contending that Appellants are responsible from the new location of the meter into the house. [See rule 6a, quoted by the majority.]
However, Appellants filed their action in the wrong court. Correct procedure would have been for Appellants to file a case before the Corporation Commission, secure an order that ONG was the responsible party, and, if possible, secure an order requiring ONG to replace the line at its expense. Then, if ONG failed to do so, Appellants could commence an action for money damages in District Court. Absent pri- or determination of the basic issue, and issues necessarily incident thereto, by the Corporation Commission, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this action. The dismissal was proper.
If the majority opinion herein is correct, original jurisdiction of all eases which properly should be filed in the Corporation Commission may easily be vested in the District Court by the simple expedient of praying for money damages. In this manner, all *1150who wish to do so, may circumvent the constitution and statutes of Oklahoma.
I respectfully dissent.