BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
RUBY
RANCH INTERNET COOPERATIVE )
ASSOCIATION, )
)
PETITIONER, )
) ARBITRATION
v.
) DOCKET NO. 01B-493T
)
QWEST CORPORATION, )
)
RESPONDENT. )
The Ruby Ranch Internet
Cooperative Association (“Coop”), pursuant to Rule 77, Colorado Public
Utilities Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, submits its response to
the Second Discovery Requests to Petitioner that Qwest Corporation (“Qwest”)
served on the Coop via facsimile on
January 8, 2002. By providing these
responses, the Coop makes no admission regarding relevance or admissibility of
any of these responses into evidence, and the Coop expressly reserves the right
to object to any efforts by Qwest to introduce irrelevant or inadmissible
matter into evidence in this proceeding.
In these responses, "Coop" means the Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association. “Neighborhood” means the Ruby Ranch neighborhood. The Coop is not related to Ruby Ranch, although membership in the Coop is limited to residents of Ruby Ranch. Accordingly, although Qwest’s discovery requests often refer to Ruby Ranch, the Coop responds on behalf of itself.
Dated
this 18th day of January, 2002.
Respectfully
submitted,
ASSOCIATION
_______________________________
Carl Oppedahl, Director
c/o Oppedahl & Larson
LLP
P.O. Box 5088
Dillon, CO 80435-5088
970-468-6600
carl@rric.net
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
The undersigned certified that on
this 18th day of January, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO QWEST’S SECOND
DISCOVERY REQUESTS was sent to the following persons via facsimile and
email:
Timothy M. Tymkovich
fax 303-592-8710
and
was served via first-class mail prepaid on January 18, 2002:
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Hale Hackstaff Tymkovich & ErkenBrack LLP
1675 Broadway, Suite 2000
Denver, CO
80202
Kris A. Ciccolo
Qwest Services Corporation
1005 17th Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO
80202
______________________________
Carl Oppedahl
Colorado
Docket No. 01B-493T
January 18, 2002
QWEST’S SECOND INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify each insurance company with which Ruby Ranch, or anyone acting for you, has had any communications about any type of insurance coverage for Ruby Ranch.
COOP’S RESPONSE:
The
Coop has taken four steps on the subject of insurance. One, it contacted USAA in San Antonio,
Texas. USAA was the only insurance
company that the Coop contacted directly.
Two,
the Coop asked a local insurance broker to attempt to find out if insurance of
the type required by Qwest is available.
The Coop does not know the identities of all of the insurance companies that
the broker contacted, but it believes that one of the companies was Scottsdale
Insurance Company.
Three,
the Coop asked the manager of the Willow Brook Metropolitan District, Ruby
Ranch’s governmental authority, to inquire of its insurance company whether
insurance meeting Qwest’s demands was available through the District. The District’s insurance company is Special
District Association Pool Insurance.
Four,
the Coop asked Qwest to inquire of its insurance company to find out whether it
might be able to purchase insurance meeting Qwest’s demands, with the premium
reimbursed by the Coop. The Coop does
not know the name of Qwest’s insurance company.
Colorado
Docket No. 01B-493T
January 18, 2002
QWEST’S SECOND INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
For each insurance company identified in response to interrogatory 1, identify: (a) the date of any communication you had with that insurance company; (b) the form of each communication you had with that insurance company (e.g., phone call, meeting, letter, e-mail etc.); (c) the content of each of your communications to the insurance company; and (d) the content of each of the insurance company’s communications to you.
COOP’S RESPONSE:
The
communication with USAA was on January 11, 2002, by telephone. The Coop read aloud to the USAA employee the
wording from paragraph 5.6 of Qwest's Proposed Interconnect Agreement regarding
Qwest's insurance requirement. USAA
stated that it was unable to write an insurance policy to satisfy such wording.
The
Coop is not aware of the precise dates of communications between the local
insurance broker the Coop contacted and the insurance companies that the broker
contacted, but believes it was in August and September of 2001. The Coop is not aware of the form of
communications between the insurance broker and the insurance companies, but is
under the impression that at least some of the communications were by
telephone. The Coop is under the
impression that the insurance companies were told the wording of Qwest's
requirements for insurance from Qwest's Proposed Interconnection
Agreement. The Coop is under the
impression that nearly all of the insurance companies stated they were unable
to write an insurance policy to satisfy such wording. The Coop is under the impression that at most one insurance
company did anything other than decline to write such an insurance policy.
The
communication with the manager of the Willow Brook Metropolitan District was in
about October of 2001. The Coop
believes that the manager's communication with the District's insurance company
was by way of a broker, and that the communication was by telephone. The Coop believes that the communication to
the insurance company was, in substance, the wording of the insurance section
of Qwest's proposed interconnect agreement.
The Coop believes that the broker responded that no insurance was
available on such terms.
The
communications with Qwest were on several occasions, one of which was on
November 1, 2001 and another of which was in January of 2002. The Coop does not know what Qwest communications,
if any, Qwest may have had with its insurance company, nor does the Coop know
what the response of the insurance company was.
Colorado
Docket No. 01B-493T
January 18, 2002
QWEST’S SECOND INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
If not stated in your response to interrogatory 2, for each insurance company identified in response to interrogatory 1, identify: (a) the type of any insurance coverage or policy you requested from the insurance company or that the insurance company offered to provide (e.g., general liability, errors and omissions, property owner’s comprehensive, etc.); (b) the coverage limit for each type of insurance coverage or policy; (c) each person or entity who would be the insured; (d) each person or entity who would have coverage; (e) the premium for each type of insurance coverage or policy; and (f) any other term or condition of each type of insurance –coverage or policy.
COOP’S RESPONSE:
In all efforts
regarding insurance, the Coop has simply quoted the language from paragraph 5.6
of Qwest's Proposed Interconnection Agreement.
According to the local insurance broker, the sole non-negative response
from an insurance company was to propose to write a general liability policy
with a $1 million limit, naming Qwest as an insured, at a cost of about $780
annually. The Coop thereafter asked
further questions of the broker, and the Coop has not heard back from the
broker in several months. Accordingly,
the Coop is not sure how firm this proposal really was.
Colorado
Docket No. 01B-493T
January 18, 2002
QWEST’S SECOND INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Identify: (a) the person or persons responding to each of these interrogatories and the requests for production of documents; and (b) each document on which such persons relied or to which they referred in preparing their responses.
COOP’S RESPONSE:
Carl Oppedahl. No documents were referred to in responding
to the interrogatories above other than Coop document 132, already produced.
Colorado
Docket No. 01B-493T
January 18, 2002
QWEST’S SECOND DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:
Produce each document identified in your response to any of the interrogatories above.
COOP’S RESPONSE:
As indicated in its response to interrogatory no. 4 above, Qwest already possesses the one document that Mr. Oppedahl using in responding to these requests.