3. Procedural Background
3.1 Narrowing of the Complaint
In Decision (D.) 96-12-060, an interim decision in this proceeding, the Commission denied relief against the named insurance companies because they are not public utilities under Commission jurisdiction. We also excluded from the complaint as inapplicable the request for damages and allegations regarding Pub. Util. Code §§ 4130-4132,1 and GO 139-C. This narrowed the scope of this proceeding to whether A&P violated GO 136-C 2 and provisions of the Public Utilities Code which address household goods cargo insurance, transportation rates and damage claims procedures. The merits of the complaint were not addressed. However, we announced a new policy prohibiting a household goods carrier from selling the property of a shipper who had filed a formal complaint against that carrier during the pendency of the complaint.3 We held the proceeding open while Karrison pursued an appeal of D.96-12-060. We ordered Karrison to inform the Commission when the appeal and related civil proceedings were concluded.
3.2 Household Goods OII and Civil Litigation
A&P challenged the new policy announced in D.96-12-060. Rehearing was granted in D.97-10-034, and the rehearing was transferred to Investigation (I.) 89-11-003, a pending proceeding instituted to address new rules to govern household goods transportation. In D.98-04-064, we found that existing law and procedures established a lien right on the part of the carrier for non-payment of household goods transportation and related charges, and that the rights of the customer/shipper were adequately protected. In addition, we concluded that Karrison never perfected her damage claim by meeting the prerequisite of Maximum Rate Tariff 4 (MAX4), Item 92.7, to pay the transportation charges. We based this conclusion on case law and provisions in the Civil and Commercial Codes that payment of the bill is separated from damage claims and lawful charges may not be offset against such a claim.
Karrison applied for rehearing of D.98-04-064. In D.99-01-035, we denied rehearing and reiterated that the customer/shipper must pay the applicable charges before a damage claim may be submitted to a carrier. (At p. 5.)
Karrison filed a timely appeal of D.99-01-035 to the California Supreme Court, which denied review. Also, during this inactive period in this proceeding, Karrison's civil complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. The Department of Insurance resolved her complaint against the insurance companies by concluding that a dispute over the value of damaged goods was outside of its jurisdiction, and recommending that Karrison consult an attorney.
3.3 Amended Complaint and ALJ Rulings on Motions
In an amended complaint filed on January 29, 1997, Karrison requested that the Commission commence a separate but concurrent proceeding in the name of the People of the State of California, to seek civil penalties on the Commission's behalf based upon alleged violations. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied this request because Karrison misinterprets Pub. Util. Code §§ 2100-2112.5. 4 These sections, among other things, authorize the Commission to seek recourse in civil court against a public utility to collect lawfully instituted and unpaid fines. Karrison's request at best was premature, since no violations had been determined or fines imposed in this proceeding. (ALJ Ruling, April 4, 2000.)
Karrison filed other motions as well. For example the assigned ALJ denied Karrison's motions misconstruing the scope, issues remaining, and burden of proof in this proceeding. However, the assigned ALJ also denied the insurance companies' motion to quash Karrison's subpoenas duces tecum, and A&P's motion to dismiss. The assigned ALJ ruled that the Commission complaint proceeding is the appropriate forum to address alleged violations of Commission regulations and applicable statutes, and that Karrison had alleged sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for such a complaint. The assigned ALJ denied Karrison's discovery motions, in part, due to her misplaced assertion of issues outside our jurisdiction. The assigned ALJ granted A&P's motion to compel discovery of documents Karrison received pursuant to her subpoena duces tecum to the Commission.
We affirm all ALJ Rulings described above.
Finally evidentiary hearing was held in Sacramento on March 5-7, 2001. Written closing statements were submitted on April 2 and 3, 2001.5
1 In 1995 when Karrison filed complaint, these sections required proof of protection against liability before the Commission may grant a permit to integrated intermodal small package carriers, such as A&P. This section was repealed in conjunction with federal preemption over transportation carriers. (Stats. 1996, ch. 1042, § 42, eff. September 29, 1996.) However, Commission regulation over household goods carriers continues under Section 5133 et seq. 2 Rules and Regulations for Household Goods Carriers On Cargo Insurance and Rules Concerning Liability For Loss and Damage of Used Household Goods and Related Property During Course of Transportation or Storage in Transit. 3 Karrison was awarded $12,000 from the Advocates Trust Fund for raising and prevailing on this issue, even though the new policy was ultimately reversed. (D.00-09-070) 4 Pub. Util. Code §§ 2100-2112.5 address the Commission's authority to impose and collect fines for violations of applicable regulations and of the Public Utilities Act. 5 The assigned ALJ orally granted Karrison's request for a one-day extension to submit her closing statement.
