Case over frozen-to-death Ohio woman should be heard by utility regulators, court holds
By Clark Mindock
May 24 (Reuters) -Ohio's top court ruled on Friday that the brother of a woman who froze to death after her gas service was cut off by a utility now owned by Enbridge ENB.TO must pursue wrongful death claims before the state's utility commission, not a trial court.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the case over 81-year-old Virginia Vigrass' 2022 death must first go before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio since it relates to actions that are normally authorized as a part of ordinary utility services.
The unanimous seven-justice court said Ohio law requires people to first file complaints with the commission alleging that a public utility's services have violated the law, if the actions relate to a utility’s rates and services.
Since the decision to shut off the Lakewood woman's gas falls under that umbrella, the utility commission must first hear the case filed against the utility, East Ohio Gas Company, before deciding whether to send it to a court, the justices held.
Enbridge acquired the utility from Dominion Energy D.N earlier this year. The companies and counsel for the woman's brother, J. William Vigrass, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The underlying lawsuit claims the utility disconnected natural gas service to the residence of Vigrass in January 2022 after the company repeatedly asked for access to her meter over months, despite her accounting being paid in full.
Vigrass refused access because she was immunocompromised and susceptible to the risks of COVID-19, but had sent some letters to the company in response to their requests, according to the lawsuit.
Frigid temperatures inside the residence after the gas shutoff caused water pipes to burst. Water then flooded the residence and froze. Police found Vigrass dead and frozen to the floor 19 days after the gas was disconnected.
Her brother sued the utility on behalf of her estate in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Judge Peter Corrigan rejected a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that he has jurisdiction over the complaint because the complaint asserted common-law claims of negligence, destruction of property and wrongful death.
The utility on appeal argued Corrigan incorrectly asserted jurisdiction in the case.
The case is East Ohio Gas Company DBA Dominion Energy Ohio v. Corrigan, Judge, Ohio Supreme Court, No. 2024-Ohio-1960.
For the utility: Matthew Rechner and Adam Smith of McDonald Hopkins
For the judge: Michael O'Malley of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office
For the estate: Mark Abramowitz and Nicholas Horattas of DiCello Levitt
Reporting by Clark Mindock; editing by Nate Raymond
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
