On Friday, Ohio’s top court ruled that the brother of a woman who froze to death after a utility, now owned by Enbridge (ENB.TO), cut off her gas service must pursue wrongful death claims before the state’s utility commission, not a trial court.
The Ohio Supreme Court decided that the case concerning 81-year-old Virginia Vigrass’ 2022 death must first go before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The court determined that the actions in question are typically authorized as part of ordinary utility services.
Ohio law requires individuals to first file complaints with the commission if they allege that a public utility’s services have violated the law, provided the actions relate to the utility’s rates and services. Since the decision to shut off the Lakewood woman’s gas falls under this category, the utility commission must initially hear the case against East Ohio Gas Company before deciding whether to send it to a court.
No immediate response
Earlier this year, Enbridge acquired the utility from Dominion Energy (D.N). Neither the companies nor the counsel for the woman’s brother, J. William Vigrass, immediately responded to requests for comment.
The underlying lawsuit claims the utility disconnected natural gas service to Vigrass’ residence in January 2022 despite her account being paid in full. The company had repeatedly asked for access to her meter over several months. Vigrass, who was immunocompromised and susceptible to the risks of COVID-19, refused access but had sent letters to the company in response to their requests.
Frigid temperatures inside the residence after the gas shutoff caused water pipes to burst, flooding the residence and freezing. Police found Vigrass dead and frozen to the floor 19 days after the gas disconnection.
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 because the complaint asserted common-law claims of negligence, destruction of property, and wrongful death. However, the utility argued on appeal that Corrigan incorrectly asserted jurisdiction in the case.
