Opinion
No. 40225
Decided March 15, 1967.
Telephone companies — Subscriber for service at different locations under separate contracts — Default in payment for service at one location — Telephone company without authority to discontinue service at all locations.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
The complainant, Guy R. Guzzo, at three different times under separate contracts, contracted for and received telephone service from appellant, Northern Ohio Telephone Company, for his home; for the Globe Store Equipment Company, owned and operated by him; and for Rassaro's Restaurant, owned and operated by him. Each contract provided for a distinct class or nature of service at a location in the city of Ashland, Ohio, different from the locations in the other two contracts. Service to the store was later terminated because of the failure of Guzzo to timely pay the amount due for such service.
The unpaid balance due for service to the store was transferred by the appellant to the account for services provided to Guzzo's residence. Guzzo continued to pay for services rendered his residence and restaurant, but, on his continued refusal to pay the amount transferred from the store account, service to the residence, and later to the restaurant, was also discontinued.
Guzzo filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission, alleging that the appellant had gone beyond its "legal rights in causing harrassment and illegal practices in telephone service rendered."
The commission ordered that appellant restore forthwith telephone service to the residence and restaurant of Guzzo.
An appeal from the order of the commission brings the cause to this court for review.
Messrs. Power, Griffith, Jones Bell and Mr. Sidney D. Griffith, for appellant.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. J. Philip Redick and Mr. Langdon D. Bell, for appellee.
Whether the appellant had authority to discontinue telephone service at complainant's residence and at his restaurant depends upon what appellant's tariff provisions provide. The tariff provision relied upon by appellant provides that:
"Where amounts due for exchange service are unpaid within twenty (20) days after the date of the monthly statement for exchange service, the telephone company may discontinue the service and remove its equipment from the subscriber's premises."
Nothing in the above-quoted tariff expressly gives the appellant authority to discontinue service at one location of a subscriber when the subscriber has failed to pay a balance due for service at another location. The appellant could have written its tariff clearly to provide for such termination, but did not. See, for example, Morse v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (1957), 152 Cal.App.2d 854, 314 P.2d 192, where the tariff provisions specifically provide for discontinuance of service at all locations if bills for service at any one or more locations are not paid before becoming past due.
The order of the commission, not being unreasonable or unlawful, is therefore affirmed.
Order affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT and SCHNEIDER, JJ., concur.
BROWN, J., dissents.