Glennon's Milk Service, Inc. v. West Chester Area Mun. Authority

• Decision Date: 26 February 1988
• Citation: 538 A.2d 138,114 Pa.Cmwlth. 88
• Parties: GLENNON'S MILK SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. WEST CHESTER AREA MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 138

538 A.2d 138

114 Pa.Cmwlth. 88

GLENNON'S MILK SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. WEST CHESTER AREA MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 15, 1987.

Decided Feb. 26, 1988.

Lawrence A. Goldberg, Melva L. Mueller, Goldberg, Evans, Herald & Donatoni, West Chester, for appellant.

Randy L. Sebastian, West Chester, for appellee.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and BARRY and COLINS, JJ.

COLINS, Judge.

Glennon's Milk Service, Inc. (Glennon's), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County which dismissed Glennon's complaint against the West Chester Area Municipal Authority (Authority) in its entirety with prejudice.

This action was originally brought by Glennon's as an action in equity to compel the Authority to repair a water leak in the service line between its main and Glennon's curb line. The Authority repaired the leak in December, 1984. The case was thereafter transferred to the law side of the trial court for a determination of whether the Authority was required to reimburse Glennon's for water damage to its property, sustained as a result of the leak.

The trial court recognized that Glennon's cause of action against the Authority was actually a challenge to the reasonableness of the Authority's rules and regulations passed in 1974. The trial court held that Glennon's failed to prove that the Authority's regulations, which placed the maintenance responsibility for service lines upon the customer, were unreasonable. Therefore, the trial court concluded that Glennon's had failed to prove any duty on the part of the Authority to repair the leak in question. Glennon's has brought the instant appeal following the trial court's denial of its post-trial motion.

In 1972, West Chester Borough Water Department, which had previously provided service to Glennon's, was taken over by the Authority. In 1974, the Authority adopted rules and regulations placing the burden of installing and maintaining the service lines upon the customer. ¹

Glennon's notified the Authority on July 1, 1982 of a leak in its service line and a dispute arose as to the responsibility for its repair. After repairing the leak in December, 1984, the Authority placed a lien on Glennon's property for the cost of the repair. Litigation in this matter was instituted shortly thereafter.

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Authority abused its discretion in promulgating its regulations which imposed the obligation of maintenance of service lines upon the customer. Glennon's contends that the delegation of the maintenance and repair obligation to the customer has rendered the service provided by the Authority unreasonable, in violation of Section 4B(h) of the Act. ² The burden of proof is on the party challenging the reasonableness of the service to prove initially, that the Authority abused its discretion by implementing a service and secondly, that the service itself is unreasonable. ³

Section 4B(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part:

B. Every Authority is hereby granted, and shall have and may exercise all powers necessary or convenient for the carrying out of the aforesaid purposes, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following rights and powers:

(h) To fix, alter, charge and collect rates and other charges in the area served by its facilities at reasonable and uniform rates to be determined exclusively by it, for the purpose of providing for the payment of the expenses of the Authority the construction, improvement, repair, maintenance and operation of its facilities and properties, ... and to determine by itself exclusively the services and improvements required to provide adequate, safe and reasonable service, ... Any person questioning the reasonableness or uniformity of any rate fixed by any Authority or the adequacy, safety and reasonableness of the Authority's services, including extensions thereof, may bring suit against the Authority in the court of common pleas of the county wherein the project is located, or if the project is located in more than one county then in the court of common pleas of the county wherein the principal office of the project is located. The court of common pleas shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine all such questions involving rates or service.

As noted previously, in 1974, by virtue of the rights and powers vested in the Authority by the Act, the Authority promulgated certain rules and regulations. Several of these regulations outlined the responsibilities of both the Authority and the customer with respect to maintenance of water service lines. Regulation 2.05A provides that all customers must keep their service pipes, on and off their property, in good working order at their own expense. Regulation 2.05B further provides that should there be a defect in the service line which the customer fails to correct, the expense which the Authority incurs to effect repairs to the service line will be borne by the customer. "Service line" is defined in Regulation 5.01 to include the piping and related appurtenances installed from the Authority's main to the building served. Regulation 5.07A provides that the customer is responsible for the piping and appurtenances from the water main to the building served. It further provides that the customer shall maintain, repair and renew the service and appurtenances, at its own expense. Finally, it provides that the customer shall maintain the service in such a manner that it does not leak or become a hazard to the public. Regulation 5.07B provides that should the Authority conclude that a condition exists in the service line which is creating a hazard and which has not been remedied by the customer, the Authority may repair the service line at the customer's expense.

In its brief to this Court, Glennon's contends that the...