Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone
898 A.2d 87, 2006 WL 1329541, 2006 R.I. LEXIS 82 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional diversion and use of electricity constitutes the tort of conversion, as electricity possesses the characteristics of tangible personal property for this purpose. Additionally, a party may be held liable for unjust enrichment for the value of benefits received, such as unbilled electricity, even if they lacked knowledge of the wrongful act that conferred the benefit.
Facts:
- In December 1986, Bernard J. and Marsha Carbone built and moved into a house at 90 Ann Drive, which was supplied with electricity by Narragansett Electric Company.
- An underground aluminum bypass conductor was installed at the property, running from a transformer to an unmetered electrical panel in the Carbones' garage.
- This bypass allowed the Carbones to receive a substantial amount of unbilled electricity to power numerous appliances, including two full kitchens, central air-conditioning, and a heated in-ground pool.
- In early 1998, Narragansett Electric detected suspiciously low and flat usage patterns at the residence.
- For eighteen months, Narragansett used check meters and discovered a significant discrepancy between the electricity supplied to the property and the amount recorded by the Carbones' billing meter.
- On September 7, 2000, during a search of the home executed with a warrant, Mr. Carbone disclosed the location of the underground bypass conductor.
- Mr. Carbone claimed the bypass was installed in 1997 or 1998, while Mrs. Carbone testified she was unaware of its existence until after the search.
Procedural Posture:
- Narragansett Electric Company filed a civil action against Bernard J. and Marsha Carbone in Rhode Island Superior Court (the trial court of general jurisdiction).
- The complaint included claims for book account, conversion, unjust enrichment, and statutory damages for larceny.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Mrs. Carbone on the book account and statutory damages counts but denied it for conversion and unjust enrichment.
- Following a bench trial, the trial justice found Mr. Carbone individually liable for conversion.
- The trial justice found both Mr. and Mrs. Carbone jointly and severally liable for unjust enrichment.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of Narragansett Electric Company.
- The Carbones (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, with Narragansett Electric (appellee) responding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional and unauthorized diversion and use of electrical current constitute the tort of conversion under Rhode Island law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Suttell
Yes, the unauthorized diversion of electricity constitutes conversion. While the tort of conversion traditionally applied only to tangible property, electricity possesses many characteristics of tangible property that justify its inclusion. We see no persuasive rationale for holding that electrical current may be criminally stolen but that its rightful owner may not recover its value in a civil action for conversion. All elements of conversion were proven against Mr. Carbone: Narragansett was entitled to possession of the electricity, Mr. Carbone took it without consent, and he exercised dominion over it by using it to power his home. The court also affirmed the unjust enrichment claim against both Mr. and Mrs. Carbone, holding that a benefit was conferred (unbilled electricity), they appreciated the benefit (by using the powered appliances), and it would be inequitable for them to retain that benefit without payment, regardless of Mrs. Carbone's knowledge of the bypass.
Analysis:
This decision officially expands the common law tort of conversion in Rhode Island to include intangible property like electricity, aligning the state with a modern trend. It provides utility companies a clear civil remedy for electricity theft, supplementing existing criminal statutes. The ruling also reinforces the equitable nature of unjust enrichment, clarifying that a defendant can be liable for appreciating and retaining a benefit even without direct knowledge of the underlying wrongful act, focusing instead on the inequity of the retention.
