Underbilled for util, consumer won.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has found for a consumer that was under billed by an electric company. Brown et al. v. Walton Electric Membership Corp., No. S99G1407.Appeal from Oconee County.

Justice Hugh P. Thompson wrote for the Court.

During a period of more than five years, Walton Electric Membership Corporation ("Walton") mistakenly under billed Brown, its customer, for electricity. Walton sued Brown for the correct billing amount, and Brown raised accord and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, and statute of limitation defenses. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Walton, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

"We hold, therefore, that a customer can assert accord and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, or statute of limitation defenses when an electric supplier sues to recover the correct billing amount. Our reasoning is plain: It is simply unjust to require an innocent consumer to bear the entire cost of a supplier's mistake where, as here, there is no time limit on back billings. Armed with absolute immunity for an indefinite time, the supplier has little incentive to establish reasonable procedures to guarantee that its meters are properly calibrated or that its bills are computed accurately."

Judgment reversed. All of the Justices concurred.

Thought it may be helpful to someone.

http://www2.state.ga.us/Courts/Supreme/index.html

 

Pro: They may be liable under the Fair Credit Billing Act.

Con: I think that the water company's argument would be that you were forewarned that you should be getting a statement, thus you should have followed up when after so much time has passed and you noticed had not received one.

 

I was looking for more details on this case (did not find it in tis entirety), but I found this:

Brown et al. v. Walton Electric Membership Corp., No. S99G1407. Appeal from the Superior Court of Oconee County.

The issue in this appeal is when an electric supplier's act results in the under-billing of its customer, and the supplier seeks to recover the correct billing amount, does O.C.G.A. § 46-3-11 preclude the assertion of accord and satisfaction (a lesser payment of a debt that satisfies the obligation as to all concerned,) equitable estoppel (prevents a party from denying something their conduct led another to believe), or statute of limitations as defenses?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Walton Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) for the under-billing Brown received from November 1991 to June 1997; the amount of the under-billing was approximately $20,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and held that public policy prohibited Brown from asserting defenses of accord and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, and statute of limitations.

Brown claims that OCGA § 46-3-11 does not explicitly or implicitly bar accord and satisfaction, equitable estoppel, or statute of limitations defenses. Brown points out that the under-billing was a result of the city's negligence. The city set a certain price, and he relied on that price when pricing his products. He claims that the General Assembly did not intend to punish an innocent customer for negligence or the intentional discriminatory practices made by EMCs. Brown asserts that the statute was meant to protect the customer from a corporation's discriminatory practices, not to provide the EMC with immunity from its own negligence.

EMC counters that the defenses of accord and satisfaction and equitable estoppel cannot be used to bar recovery. EMC asserts that public policy against rate discrimination often supercedes estoppel and other defenses.

Now to read up on O.C.G.A. § 46-3-11...