Date: 12-02-2012

Case Style: Clinton R. Strong, M.D. v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Case Number: CJ-2008-800

Judge: Gary E. Miller

Court: District Court, Canadian County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: R. Stephen Hayes

Defendant's Attorney: Rod L. Cook and Christopher Todd Ward and C. Todd Ward

Description: Clinton R. Strong, M.D. sued Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company on a negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff Strong is a resident of El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma, and is the owner of real property located at 1801 Parkview Drive, El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma.

2. Defendant OG&E is an Oklahoma Utility Corporation incorporated under and regulated by the State of Oklahoma, doing business in Canadian County, Oklahoma.

3. The agreements, representations, acts and omissions set forth herein occurred in El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma. As a result thereof, the District Court of Canadian County has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this action.

FACTS

4. Strong is the owner of certain real property located at 1801 Parkview Drive, El Reno, Oklahoma (“Property”), which serves as a medical clinic. OG&E is the electrical service provider for said real property. Prior to May 14, 2008, portions of the real property were leased to a third party tenant as a medical clinic with other portions reserved to Strong for medical records and personal property storage.

5. Upon information and belief, on or about May 15, 2008, electrical service provided by OG&E was terminated to the Property. Thereafter, Strong discovered that electrical service had been terminated to the Property and requested that service be reestablished to the Property by May 22, 2008. Strong was assured that service would be reestablished not later than May 23, 2008, and that billing for service would commence as of the date service was reestablished.

6. On May 26, 2008, the Property along with medical records and personal property of Strong was damaged by rain water entering the basement area of the Property as a result of the lack of electrical service which prevented an automatic pump from activating in the Property.

7. Contrary to the agreement of the parties, service was not restored to the Property on or before May 23, 2008. Strong was billed and paid for such service from and after May 22, 2008. As a result of the failure of OG&E to restore service as agreed, Strong sustained damage to the Property and his personal property located thereon.

8. Prior to May 22,2008, representatives of OG&E wrongfully, carelessly, negligently and affirmatively represented to Strong that service would be restored to the Property no later than May 23, 2008, when they knew or should have known that restoration of service was not assured. Strong relied upon such representation. As a result thereof, Strong took no action to otherwise protect the Property and the personal property thereon.

9. As a result of the agreements, representations, acts and omissions of OG&E, the Property and personal property thereon were damaged and destroyed. As a result thereof, Strong has sustained damage in excess of$l0,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Clinton R. Strong, M.D., prays for judgment against the Defendant, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00, his attorney fees and cost of this action.

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company answered as follows:

1. OG&E is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph I of the Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

2. OG&E admits that it is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. OG&E admits that it is an electric utility regulated by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission and in this capacity operates electrical power transmission lines in
Canadian County, Oklahoma. OG&E denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 2 of the
Petition.

3. OG&E admits that jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action is proper in Canadian County. OG&E denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of the Petition.

FACTS

4. OG&E Admits that it is the electrical service provider for 1801 Parkview Drive in El Reno Oklahoma. As to the remaining allegations ofparagraph 4 ofthe Petition, OG&E is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, and demands strict proof thereof

5. OG&E admits that electrical service to 1801 Parkview Drive in El Reno, Oklahoma was disconnected on or about May 8,2008 for non-payment. OG&E denies that it made anypromise to re-connect electrical service at Plaintiffs request by a date certain. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of the Petition, OG&E is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth, and demands strict proof thereof

6. OG&E is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition, and demands strict proof thereof

7. OG&E admits that electrical service to 1801 Parkview Drive in El Reno, Oklahoma was re-connected on or about June 12, 2008. OG&E denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of the Petition.

8. OG&E denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Petition.

9. OG&E denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Petition.

All allegations in the Petition are denied unless specifically admitted above.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

2. The circumstances recited in Plaintiffs Petition, ifproven, demonstrate that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

3. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

4. Plaintiff has failed to join parties necessary to this action under 12 O.S. § 2019.

5. Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of any harm incurred.

6. Plaintiffs damages, ifproven, were proximately caused by an intervening Act ofGod or other unavoidable condition.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (“OG&E”) requests that this Court deny all requested relief sought by Plaintiff in this action and render judgment in favor of OG&E.

OG&E moved for summary judgment.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: