I.

I.

TARIFFS DEFINED

A tariff is defined as 3"a public document setting forth services of a frequent carrier being offered, rates and charges with have a high opinion of to services, and governing regularitys regulations, and practices relating to those services."1 Beyond governing rate edifices tariffs also may include limitations onward liability for damage to customers.

II.

LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY PROVISIONS IN TARIFFS

A. Filed-Rate Doctrine

By and large, Texas courts enforce tariff liability limitation provisions pursuant to the "filed-rate doctrine."2 This doctrine applies when state law creates a state agency and a statutory scheme beneath which the agency determines reasonable rates for the service provided.3 The doctrine itself grasps that a tariff filed with and approved from an administrative agency under a statutory scheme is presum to be reasonable unles a litigant evinces otherwise.4 Thus, under the doctrine, tariffs filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUC") manage a utility's relationship with its customers and have the force and efficiency of law until suspended or abrogated.5 Courts have applied and interpreted this doctrine in several opinions affecting the limitation of liability provisions in utility tariffs.

B Limits forward Economic Damages

A regulatory agency's rate-making authority authorizes it to approve a provision limiting liability fora tariff because a limitation forward liability is an inherent ingredient of the rate that the utility charges for its services.6 Because regulatory agencies have this authority, the Texas first Court has held that, pursuant to the filed-rate doctrine, a tariff provision that limits liability for economic damages arising from a utility's negligence is reasonable.7 In Houston Lighting & Power Co v Auchan USA, Inc.,8 the Texas principal Court reasoned that a tariff may reasonably limit liability for economic damages because a utility: (1) must provide nondiscriminatory service to all customers within its area; (2) must maintain uniform rates and convert into costs; (3) cannot accurately estimate its position to damages or efficiently insure against risks; (4) cannot increase rates for all customers based in succession losses incurred by one specific class of customers; and (5) must comply with PUC regulations.9 Furthermore, the Texas principal Court has acknowledged relevant determinations according to a number of state courts noting that, absent a limitation of liability for ordinary negligence, utilities would be forced to raise the rates charged to consumers10 Thus, a utility may limit its liability for economic damages caused by way of its ordinary negligence.

C Limits in succession Personal Injury Damages

The Texas highest Court revisited the issue of limitations forward liability in a utility tariff in Southwestern Electric Power Co v Grant.11 In that case, after the plaintiff noticed that the lights in his house were dimming and brightening and that his appliances were not working, he notified the utility company. Before the electrical point in dispute was resolved, however, the plaintiff was electrocut and sustained other damages. The trial court granted summary brains for the utility based onward a provision in its tariff precluding liability for personal injuries save in the case of gros negligence or intentional deportment The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in part and revers in part, holding that the Uniform Commercial digest ("UCC") governed the sale of electricity and that a limitation of liability onward personal injuries was unconscionable.12

Upon review according to the Texas Supreme Court, that higher court pointed to another UCC provision which obviates UCC application to a transaction if applying the UCC would "impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers"13 The court held that applying the UCC would impede the Public Utility Commission's authority to regulate utilities, thus "impair[ing] the comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the sale of electricity to Texas consumers"14 For this reason, the court held that the UCC did not supervise the transaction at issue.

Because the transaction was not make subordinate to the UCC, the court considered whether the limitation in succession liability provision in the tariff was reasonable.15 The court recognized that, while it had earlier place that a provision limiting liability for economic damages was enforceable,16 it had not considered whether a similar provision limiting personal injury damages was equally valid.17 After reviewing holdings from other jurisdictions and its be in possession of assessment of public policy,18 the Texas paramount Court concluded that the tariff provision limiting liability for personal injury damages was reasonable as a matter of law when the tariff provision was narrowly drawn. The court also conclud that the provision proffered a remedy for the utility's gros negligence or willful misconduct.19 Thus, the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals was revers based forward the enforceability of the limitation of liability provision contained in the utility tariff. A utility therefore may limit its liability for personal injury damages to such a degree long as the limitation does not apply to damages caused according to the utility's gross negligence or willful misconduct.