From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Company

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 29, 1978
77 N.J. 267 (N.J. 1978)

Summary

holding the CFA inapplicable "to public utility rates subject to the Board of Public Utilities' exclusive rate-setting jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp.

Opinion

Argued April 24, 1978 —

Decided June 29, 1978.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Russell Fleming, Jr. argued the cause for appellant.

Mr. Henry J. Daaleman argued the cause for cross-appellant.

Mr. Bertram P. Goltz, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, attorney).


The present suit, so far as it is pertinent to this appeal, was filed as a class action against defendant Elizabethtown Gas Company (Elizabethtown), a privately owned public utility corporation operating under the jurisdiction of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the State of New Jersey (PUC). Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of a class of 186,000 gas customers of Elizabethtown and that he is maintaining this suit on their behalf under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.

Plaintiff charges that Elizabethtown has fraudulently manipulated the Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause which is a part of its filed tariff so as to overstate the actual cost of gas purchased, as well as the quantity thereof, and has reflected this overstatement in the monthly bills sent to its customers. The suit demands treble damages, counsel fees and costs. N.J.S.A. 56:8-19.

The trial judge, in an opinion reported at 142 N.J. Super. 531 (Law Div. 1976), dismissed plaintiff's suit, holding that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply to a public utility. The dismissal was without prejudice to plaintiff presenting the same complaint to PUC, which the trial judge held was the appropriate forum for granting redress for overcharges by a public utility.

On appeal by plaintiff, the Appellate Division, in a reported opinion, 150 N.J. Super. 78 (1977), agreed that the breadth of the PUC's statutorily accorded regulatory control over public utilities virtually mandated adjudication of the merits of plaintiff's complaint by that agency rather than by the court. The Appellate Division held, though, that public utilities were also subject to the provisions of the Consumer Fraud Act and that the court had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's complaint. However, since the basic issue, namely Elizabethtown's alleged fraudulent manipulation of the Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause, was within the PUC's special competence, expertise and statutory jurisdiction, the Appellate Division held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should have been invoked and, instead of dismissing the complaint, the court should have stayed the action pending PUC's resolution of the "agency" issues.

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the court declines original jurisdiction and refers to the appropriate body those issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.

Specifically, the Appellate Division held that the only issue raised by plaintiff's complaint which was not initially adjudicable by the PUC, was plaintiff's right to treble damages and counsel fees. In this regard, the Appellate Division held that the Consumer Fraud Act did not mandate an award of treble damages but only authorized such award in the discretion of the trial court. The matter was accordingly remanded for reinstatement of plaintiff's complaint and, dependent upon the outcome of the PUC hearing, consideration of the question of treble damages and counsel fees. Elizabethtown's petition for certification was granted by this Court. 75 N.J. 537 (1977), as was plaintiff's cross-petition. 75 N.J. 590 (1977).

As heretofore noted, Elizabethtown is a privately owned public utility corporation operating under the jurisdiction of PUC. It is subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, N.J.S.A. 48:2-1 et seq. and implementing regulations promulgated by PUC. The rates it charges customers for gas service are fixed by PUC. However, an Administrative Order of PUC, N.J.A.C. 14:11-1.13, allows Elizabethtown to include in its tariff a Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause by virtue of which the utility is permitted to make automatic adjustments in its customer billings for variations in the cost of purchasing and storing gas. The administrative order requires Elizabethtown to submit to PUC detailed statements as to such cost figures and adjustments in billings made thereunder. Elizabethtown's alleged overcharging of customers made under this clause is the basis of plaintiff's suit.

The Consumer Fraud Act, originally enacted in 1960, is aimed basically at unlawful sales and advertising practices designed to induce consumers to purchase merchandise or real estate. It provides in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2,

The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice; * * *.

The act as amended and supplemented is administered by the Division of Consumer Affairs, Department of Law and Public Safety. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-124. Detailed administrative regulations have been adopted, pursuant to the act, controlling selling and advertising practices in the areas of consumer sales which are subject to the act. N.J.A.C. 13:45A-1.1 et seq.

The act provides for injunctive relief against unlawful practices, N.J.S.A. 56:8-8, monetary penalties for violation of the act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-13, and also permits a person, who suffers a loss due to a method, act or practice declared unlawful under the act, to sue and recover threefold the damages sustained, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19.

It seems clear that Elizabethtown, by using its Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause in its monthly billings, did not engage in a selling or advertising practice within the meaning of the Consumer Fraud Act. In enacting N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., the legislative concern was over sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise and real estate whereby the consumer could be victimized by being lured into a purchase through fraudulent, deceptive or other similar kind of selling or advertising practices.

This is simply not the present case. Here involved are adjustments in defendant utility's billings as a result of variations in the costs of it of purchasing and storage gas supplies. As heretofore noted, a Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause is a tariff mechanism, permitted under PUC's administrative order. Application of the clause involves interpretation of the PUC administrative order and regulations. Its use is subject to PUC supervision and control. Misuse of this type of clause, whether intentional or otherwise, and the remedies therefor are matters as to which PUC has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction.

The record shows that as a result of a complaint by plaintiff to PUC regarding Elizabethtown's alleged fraudulent manipulation of the clause in question, the Division of Audits of PUC is presently conducting an investigation of the matter. Upon completion of the audit, the PUC will then afford plaintiff the opportunity to "present his factual contentions and legal arguments." If it should develop that Elizabethtown is making improper use of its Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause, PUC has ample authority to order corrective and remedial action.

It is also to be noted that the Consumer Fraud Act is Administered by the Division of Consumer Affairs which has promulgated extensive regulations for those consumer transactions which are subject to the act. Were Elizabethtown held to come under the act in its use of its Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause, a situation would be presented where separate state agencies would have the right to exercise concurrent jurisdiction and control over Elizabethtown's billings, with a real possibility of conflicting determinations, rulings and regulations affecting the identical subject matter.

The Consumer Fraud Act also provides that in a suit under the act by a person who suffers a loss because of a violation of the act, "the court shall * * * award threefold the damages sustained * * *," as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This provision is a punitive measure which is inappropriate where a public utility is concerned. It constitutes an additional reason why Elizabethtown, at least in the activity here involved, is not subject to the provisions of the Consumer Fraud Act.

A privately owned public utility such as Elizabethtown is a complex mechanism. It exists to serve a public need but to do so it must have investor appeal. It must be allowed a reasonable return on its investment. It needs borrowing power at normal business rates to finance its day-to-day operations. The soundness of its financial structure is the key to its successful operation in the public interest. Punitive assessments against it are counterproductive because, in the long run, it is the public users of the utility service on whom the punitive award will fall. No matter how such award is molded to avoid a "pass through" of the punitive damages, the financial structure of the utility will be affected with resultant loss of investor appeal and higher interest rates for borrowing, all of which will ultimately be reflected in the rates charged consumers.

The Appellate Division recognized that an award of treble damages against a utility might well be counterproductive to the interests of the very class on whose behalf the suit was allegedly brought. It sought to avoid such result by holding that an award of treble damages was not mandated by the Consumer Fraud Act but only authorized by it. We find it unnecessary to approve or disapprove of this holding in view of our disposition of the case.

During the pendency of this appeal, defendant Elizabethtown filed a motion in this Court to disqualify plaintiff Daaleman from acting both as attorney for the class, and as class representative, because of the potential conflict of interest. See Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp., 534 F.2d 1085 (3 Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 830, 97 S.Ct. 90, 50 L.Ed.2d 94 (1976). Alternatively, defendant sought a remand to the trial court for a hearing on the maintainability of the class action under R. 4:32-2(a). In view of our disposition of the case, a ruling on these matters is unnecessary.

For the reasons given, we conclude that the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of PUC and is not cognizable under the Consumer Fraud Act. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Elizabethtown is hereby reinstated.


I fully subscribe to the cogent analysis of Justice Sullivan and join his opinion for the Court. I agree that the alleged fraudulent conduct of the defendant utility, which is the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint, does not constitute fraud "in connection with the sale" of merchandise within the meaning of the applicable provision of the Consumer Fraud Act, L. 1967, c. 301, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.

I write separately to note that a regulated utility may nevertheless be covered by that Act when it engages in commercial activity not governed by the comprehensive scheme of PUC rate regulation.

A public utility plainly qualifies as a "person" as that term is defined in the Act. See N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(d). There is no valid reason why a utility, simply by reason of the fact that it is subject to regulation of its rates in the public interest, should be exempt from the Act if it should commit fraud in connection with the marketing of merchandise. To take a currently obvious example, the telephone company's persistent efforts to convince consumers to purchase "personalized," custom-designed phones are no different from the attempts of any other manufacturer to effectively advertise and sell its products. Suppliers of fuel will often sell related equipment, such as oil burners, fuel tanks or gas and electric ranges in connection with their regulated activity. Conduct of this type should not be exempt from N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 merely because of the fortuitous circumstance that the vendor involved is a utility subject to PUC regulation on unrelated matters. If a utility engages in practices of the type proscribed by the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, it should be subject to the same penalties as any other vendor.

Our decision today holds only that alleged fraud in the clearly rate-related activity of a regulated utility is not remediable under the Consumer Fraud Act. The application of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 to such activity was not within the legislative contemplation and adequate relief is available from the PUC in the event fraudulent conduct by the utility is proven. Utilities which venture beyond the sphere of PUC regulation and into the consumer marketplace must comply with the proscriptions of the Consumer Fraud Act or face liability thereunder.

As the Court notes, utility customers victimized by a utility's fraudulent rate practices may obtain redress from the PUC. In fashioning an appropriate remedy for such illegal conduct, the PUC is empowered, and indeed obligated, to award complete relief to the entire class of persons who were improperly charged excessive rates. The most suitable remedy in such a case would be a mandatory rate reduction for all customers of the utility for the period of time necessary to ensure that all of its illegal profits will be disgorged. Such "fluid" class relief has been employed in other instances where class-wide injury has been suffered and its use in an administrative forum is equally appropriate. See Bebchick v. Public Utilities Commission, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 216, 232, 318 F.2d 187, 203-04 (D.C. Cir. 1963), cert. den. 373 U.S. 913, 83 S.Ct. 1304, 10 L.Ed. 2d 414 (1963); Mountain States Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 180 Colo. 74, 502 P.2d 945, 949 (Sup.Ct. 1972); see also Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Ct., 18 Cal.3d 381, 134 Cal.Rptr. 393, 556 P.2d 755 (1976) (Tobriner, J., concurring).

Finally, I find that N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 not only sanctions but requires the award of treble damages to a successful plaintiff in an action under the Consumer Fraud Act. The statutory language involved, like that used in the analogous provision of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, L. 1970, c. 73, N.J.S.A. 56:9-12, clearly speaks in the imperative. I believe that the deterrent and punitive purposes of the Act would be substantially undermined by any judicial impairment of its primary weapon against those who engage in consumer fraud.

PASHMAN, J., concurring in the result.

For reversal — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and HANDLER and Judge CONFORD — 6.

For affirmance — None.


Summaries of

Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Company

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 29, 1978
77 N.J. 267 (N.J. 1978)

holding the CFA inapplicable "to public utility rates subject to the Board of Public Utilities' exclusive rate-setting jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp.

holding that CFA does not apply to public utility rates subject to Board of Public Utilities' exclusive rate-setting jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc.

holding that fraudulent billing practices were not "selling or advertising" practices within the meaning of the CFA and thus were not subject to the CFA

Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. Auto Mall 46, Inc.

finding that the Consumer Fraud Act's treble damages "provision is a punitive measure"

Summary of this case from Wanetick v. OCT Partnership

In Daaleman, a Public Utilities Commission regulation permitted privately owned public utilities to include in their tariffs a clause allowing them to automatically adjust the otherwise fixed rate to account for variations in the cost of gas, so long as the utilities submitted to the Commission "detailed statements as to such cost figures and adjustments in billings made [under the regulation]."

Summary of this case from Patane v. Nestlé Waters N. Am., Inc.

noting that NJCFA is designed to address "sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise ... whereby the consumer could be victimized by being lured into a purchase through fraudulent, deceptive or other similar kind of selling or advertising practices."

Summary of this case from Winter v. Am. Inst. of Med. Scis. & Educ.

noting that NJCFA is designed to address "sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise ... whereby the consumer could be victimized by being lured into a purchase through fraudulent, deceptive or other similar kind of selling or advertising practices."

Summary of this case from Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co.

noting that NJCFA is designed to address "sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise . . . whereby the consumer could be victimized by being lured into a purchase through fraudulent, deceptive or other similar kind of selling or advertising practices."

Summary of this case from Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co.

interpreting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 as allowing private party to bring action if he or she "suffers a loss due to a method, act or practice declared unlawful under the [A]ct, to sue and recover threefold the damages sustained, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit"

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.

In Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 390 A.2d 566 (1978), a consumer brought suit under the Consumer Fraud Act on behalf of gas customers against a privately owned public utility company operating under the jurisdiction of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the State of New Jersey (PUC).

Summary of this case from In re Cohen

explaining that CFA “permits a person, who suffers a loss ... to sue and recover threefold the damages sustained”

Summary of this case from D'Agostino v. Maldonado

explaining that private plaintiff must show that he or she "suffers a loss due to" defendant's unlawful practice

Summary of this case from Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.

interpreting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 as allowing private party to bring action if he or she "suffers a loss due to a method, act or practice declared unlawful under the [A]ct, to sue and recover threefold the damages sustained, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit"

Summary of this case from Weinberg v. Sprint Corp.

observing that Act's provisions providing for trebling of damages and awarding of counsel fees constitute "a punitive measure"

Summary of this case from Wanetick v. Gateway Mitsubishi

In Daaleman, supra, we held that a privately owned public utility could not be liable under the CFA for having set rates artificially high in an allegedly fraudulent manner.

Summary of this case from Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management

paraphrasing causation language of section 56:8-19 as requiring plaintiff to show he "suffers a loss due to" an unlawful practice

Summary of this case from Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 273, 390 A.2d 566 (1978), the Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to extend the applicability of the Consumer Fraud Act to a claim that a public utility had fraudulently manipulated charges imposed under its filed tariff to overstate the actual cost and quantity of gas purchased.

Summary of this case from KAWA v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP. SHOPRITE SUPERMARKETS

In Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 271-73, 390 A.2d 566, 568-70 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a private utility could not be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act for fraudulently raising rates.

Summary of this case from Island Mortgs. of New Jersey v. 3M

In Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 272-73, 390 A.2d 566 (1978), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply to a public utility accused of manipulating a tariff mechanism in its monthly bills to consumers.

Summary of this case from Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management

In Daaleman, a group of consumers claimed that a privately owned public utility had violated the Consumer Fraud Act by overstating the costs and quantity of its fuel purchases.

Summary of this case from Barry v. N.J. State Hwy. Authority
Case details for

Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Company

Case Details

Full title:HENRY J. DAALEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jun 29, 1978

Citations

77 N.J. 267 (N.J. 1978)
390 A.2d 566

Citing Cases

Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management

The CFA is intended to protect consumers "by eliminating sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of…

Shaw v. Shand

Thus, the issues are: (1) whether the HIPLA's regulation of home inspectors is so pervasive as to render CFA…