The past few years have seen major power outages caused by severe weather across the United States—including in the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas, and New York state. The power also sometimes goes out when public utility companies use "rolling blackouts" and other measures to ease strain on the electrical grid and avoid liability for things like wildfire-related damage.
These kinds of outages cause major disruptions to people's lives, and at their worst can be life-threatening and financially devastating. Even so, customers often have few legal options when a blackout or other service-related problem causes harm or property damage.
In this article, we'll explain:
If you've suffered some kind of harm as a direct or indirect result of a power outage, water supply problem, or other service provided by a public utility, it's always possible to file a lawsuit seeking compensation for your losses ("damages").
But it's important to be aware that these kinds of cases rarely succeed when the outage or issue is attributable to severe weather or some other "act of God" (which, in legal terms, just means a major natural event that's not under any person's control).
And, even when an outage or service interruption is planned, a lawsuit against a utility can be a steep uphill climb unless you can show serious misconduct on the part of the utility,
Let's look closer at this issue, including the rare kinds of claims that might succeed.
It may not seem particularly fair, but the main reason your lawsuit against a public utility probably won't get very far is that the utility itself makes the rules about when it might be liable to its customers for problems with their service.
Here's how it works:
Take, for example, the tariff book of Consolidated Edison (ConEd), New York's largest provider of power. It states that if its provision of services is interrupted, becomes irregular, or fails altogether "from causes beyond [ConEd's] control or through ordinary negligence of its employees," the company will not be liable.
So here, ConEd goes beyond just refusing to accept liability for service problems related to causes beyond its control—which would include weather and unforeseen accidents of all kinds. It also declares that even "ordinary negligence" (carelessness) of its employees isn't enough to make the utility liable for an outage or service-related harm.
Elsewhere in ConEd's tariff book (and in that of almost any big utility provider) you'll find specific language describing the company's right to carry out planned service interruptions (i.e. "rolling blackouts") and other restrictive measures as appropriate to reduce the risk of larger service-related problems. Limitation-of-liability language accompanies these terms as well.
These kinds of liability shields are often rationalized as necessary to keep customers' service rates reasonably low. The perceived alternative would be to place public utilities on the perpetual legal hook for losses resulting from often-unavoidable problems that can have widespread impact. That huge financial burden that would inevitably be passed on to customers in the form of higher rates.
These limitation of liability clauses aren't absolute. Through the terms explicitly or implicitly set in their tariff books, most public utilities accept liability for "gross negligence" or intentional misconduct that results in losses suffered by customers. But, as you might imagine, this is a very high legal bar to clear. In the context of the provision of public utility services, "gross negligence" might be defined as reckless conduct demonstrating a conscious disregard for, or indifference to, customer safety.
So, to have a shot at getting over the high bar to liability, you'll probably have to show that the utility:
(Note: Water mains, sewer and drainage systems, and certain other public utility equipment is often owned and maintained by local municipalities, which can give rise to a separate set of liability rules and claim-filing procedures. As an example, see our article on suing a state or local government for injury in California).
If you think your utility is to blame for your property damage or other losses, the court-based lawsuit process isn't always your only option for seeking compensation. It's often possible to file a claim directly with a public utility.
Some utilities have an online procedure in place through which a customer submits a claim, the utility reviews it, and a decision is made to deny or accept (pay) the claim. There are limits to the compensation available through this process, including:
Here are a few examples of utilities with online claim options:
Some public utility companies also offer customers a small amount of near-automatic compensation when an outage lasts beyond a certain amount of time.
One example is PG&E's Safety Net program, which provides payments to customers who go without power for more than 48 hours due to "severe events, like storms." The program pays "$25 to $100 automatically 60 to 120 days after the outage," with the amount depending on the outage length.
Of course, these relatively small payments may not seem significant compared to the hardship or harm caused by a lengthy utility outage.
Outage-related lawsuits against public utility companies are notoriously tough to win. But, in rare instances, you may be able to pierce the limitation-of-liability shield and receive compensation. If you've suffered losses due to a severe power outage, and think your utility's actions (or inaction) were particularly outrageous, you may want to discuss your situation with an attorney. It's important to speak with someone who understands the challenges of this kind of case. You can learn more about what to ask to find the lawyer with the right experience for your situation, and reach out to an attorney near you using the features on this page.