Court Opinion

ID: 9568228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:01:42.181952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:29.154317
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that Puget Sound Power & Light must stand trial for failing to fire up the generator at the Shuffle-ton plant in anticipation of the Inauguration Day storm. I would hold that National Union Insurance Company did not establish duty in its response to Puget Power’s motion for summary judgment.
National Union relies on RCW 80.04.440, which states that a public service company is liable for any loss caused by the company’s failure to do “any act, matter or thing required to be done ... by any order or rule of the commission.” The administrative regulation on which National Union relies provides in part that “each utility shall endeavor to avoid interruptions of service, and, when such interruptions occur, to reestablish service with a minimum of delay.” WAC 480-100-076. The majority concludes that the regulation makes Puget Power responsible for damages suffered by customers after a storm-caused power outage if a jury finds the company did not reestablish service with a minimum of delay. Majority at 174.1 disagree.
WAC 480-100-076, entitled “Service responsibilities,” covers a utility company’s liability during scheduled interruptions, not during natural disasters or other interruptions beyond the company’s control:
Interruptions of service—each utility shall endeavor to avoid interruptions of service, and, when such interruptions occur, to reestablish service with a minimum of delay.
When it is necessary for a utility to make repairs to or change its facilities the utility may, without incurring any liability therefor, interrupt service for such periods as may be reasonably necessary, and in such manner as to minimize the inconvenience to customers, provided that, when practicable, such interruption shall be during working hours regularly maintained by the utility. Police and fire departments affected by the interruption shall be individually notified. All customers affected by a scheduled interruption shall be given notification, *184through newspapers, radio announcements or other means, at least one day in advance.
WAC 480-100-076 (emphasis added).
Provisions in a statute are read in context of the statute as a whole. Pope v. University of Wash., 121 Wn.2d 479, 489, 852 P.2d 1055, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1115, 114 S. Ct. 1061 (1993). Read in context, the regulation relied on does not impose upon Puget Power any specific duty with respect to the reestablishment of service after a natural disaster.3
Precluding Puget Power’s liability here is consistent with the language of the tariff enacted by Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, providing that “Neither the Company nor any other person or entity shall have any liability to any Customer ... for any interruption ... in service for any loss or damage caused thereby if [it] results from any of the following: . . . Causes beyond the Company’s reasonable control including, but not limited to, fire, flood, drought, winds, acts of the elements.”
If Puget Power’s failure to start the backup generator can be found to breach a duty imposed by WAC 480-100--076, then the reach of the regulation cannot be confined as the majority indicates. Significantly broadened exposure to liability will be the result. In the present case, for example, power from Shuffleton presumably could have been delivered to every customer of Puget Power, and therefore any customer who suffered power loss damage in the Inauguration Day storm could have been a plaintiff along with Boeing. In the future, whenever Washington’s weather causes service interruptions, public utility companies will face trials, probably even class actions, to prove that their efforts to reestablish service were done with “a minimum of delay.”
I would hold the regulation was not intended to give rise *185to an actionable duty under RCW 80.04.440, and would affirm the superior court’s order dismissing National Union’s claim against Puget Power.
Review denied at 138 Wn.2d 1010 (1999).

Cf Employco Personnel Servs. Inc. v. Seattle, 117 Wn.2d 606, 614, 817 P.2d 1373 (1991) and Zamora v. Mobil Oil Corp., 104 Wn.2d 199, 209, 704 P.2d 584 (1985) (duty under RCW 80.04.040 .arose from violations of statutes specifically requiring, respectively, the marking of underground utilities and the odorization of gas).