The opinion
Abood, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I, regretfully, disagree with both the analysis and the result set forth by the majority. Upon review of R.C. 4933.12, R.C. 4933.122, Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-
*809
18-04, and the related case law, I find nothing to support the interpretation that either statute “prohibits] a collection action and judgment in favor of a utility company for the amount of an arrearage accrued by a customer who is eligible for and participating in the PIP plan.” I disagree further that allowing a utility company to obtain a judgment for accumulated arrearages on past due payments while requiring it to continue the utility service to the customer is an “absurd result.” Rather, such a result, in addition to being what is provided for by the clear language of the statutes, would be of some benefit to all consumers while providing a measure of protection to those who are unable to pay from having their utility service terminated. As honorable as it may be, I believe that the analysis and result of the majority, although it should be, is simply not provided for by law.
I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.