Refusal of service characterized as willful

Punitive damages assessed against a water company for refusing service were upheld by an Illinois appellate court. “Here,” the court said, “there was certainly conscious indifference to and intentional disregard for the hardship sure to be thrust upon persons deprived of water at their place of residence over a prolonged period of time.” In April 1978 the Dempsey family purchased a lot in a subdivision served by Holiday Utilities Corporation. At the time of the purchase, a water meter and a locked yard hydrant had been installed on the lot. In July 1978, prior to completion of the house on the lot, Holiday Utilities billed the Dempseys $12.50 for the quarterly billing period ending June 30 and $368.75 for a previous unpaid bill. The Dempseys refused to pay the previous bill. When the Dempseys attempted to apply for service and agreed to pay the minimum quarterly charge, service was refused. The Illinois Commerce Commission was asked to intervene and agreed that the Dempseys could not be denied service based upon a previous owner's bill. Still Holiday Utilities refused service. Finally, the Dempseys sought an injunction against the water company. The trial court ruled for them and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $3500. In the appeal, Holiday Utilities argued, in part, that because it believed it was justified in refusing service its behavior should not be characterized as willful. However, the court said it was not the presence or absence of possible justification for Holiday Utilities' refusal to provide water that rendered its action willful. Rather it was the conduct by which the company sought to implement its views, that is, attempting to force the Dempseys to capitulate or do without vital service, that could fairly be characterized as willful.