ÿWPC' ïÕÖ¹k˜‰ÿ‚òpÖäÒ©ÿ?æÂÏe•üã|—™õdw\S f†´.¥(Ð4ÍE½¯«ëzX\|BgrFJˆú‡œfj´aÓ`(ýoC<ƒ"]äŽo×îm, ”àªCV:×^-À!m­ß½_* BômÌ©wĹ³„…ëþÅ"U8`&_ÅmÙ\~ñHåÇ)->»ÎŠJ)?¹:Î!⠂ɪ‘ô.u\s´ ×ŧ}´GÑ#€uXÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑØØ«Mq)0u†)L †‡ˆ™‰DŠD‹™Œ™ŽD¹~Œ)0 œ|Û¡3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<þ6X9`(Courier dÝ ƒ !ÝÓ  ÓÔ€XÃXXXÔÝ  Ý›Ñ` °ÑñˆñÒÀ°Òñˆñò òÑ  Ññ‡ñà@ÎÎ"ìàÔ‡Š&¨‹XXÐìÔÔ‡Š^ž‹‹Š&¨ÔPETER€B.€KRAUSERˆÐ `  Ðà@ccìàCourt€of€Special€AppealsˆÌà@$$!ìà361€Rowe€BoulevardˆÌà@ÙÙìàAnnapolis,€Maryland€21401ˆÌà@~~$ìà410„260„1469ˆÌñ‡ñó óñ‡ñÌÌÔ#†Š&¨‹‹Š^žÁ#ÔÔ#†XÐìX‹Š&¨¢#Ôà@ðð"ìàÔ ƒÝ ÔDecember€22,€2000Ô!  ԈР` ÐÌChief€Judge€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.ÌHonorable€¢Arrie£€W.€DavisÌHonorable€Ellen€L.€HollanderÌHonorable€James€P.€SalmonÌHonorable€James€R.€¢Eyler£ÌHonorable€Andrew€L.€¢Sonner£ÌHonorable€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÌHonorable€Deborah€S.€ByrnesÌHonorable€Sally€D.€¢Adkins£ÌÔ‡$XXXXÐìÔÌÔ#†XÐìXX$XF#Ôà  àRe:à0 ` àòòIntercom€Systems€Corporation€v.€BellÐZú` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àAtlantic€of€Maryland,€Inc.óóÐ 6Ö Ðà  àà ` àNo.€154,€September€Term,€1998Ìà  àà ` àArgued:€June€14,€2000ÌÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àEnclosed€for€your€review€is€a€proposed€ò òreportedó ó€opinion€in€theÐ @ à Ðabove„captioned€appeal.ÌÌà  àI€would€appreciate€your€comments€and€suggestions€in€time€forÏour€next€conference.ÌÌà  àThank€you€for€your€cooperation,€I€amÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSincerely,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€ò òòòÔ‡XÊRXXXÐìÔPeteró óÐ ª(J$ ÐÌÔ#†XÐìXXXÊRt#Ôóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPeter€B.€¢Krauser£Ð ˆ*(!& ÐÌ¢PBK:ld£ÌEnclosureÌÐ à-€$* Ðcc:€Hon.€Marvin€H.€Smith,€(Ret.)Ð  `  ÐÒÀ°Òñ‡ñà@5ôàò òREPORTEDó óˆÐ `  ÐÌÌà@°°*ôàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ ð  Ðà@``4ôàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ Æ f ÐÌÌÌà@ØØ5ôàNo.€154€€ˆÌÌÌà@DD/ôàSeptember€Term,€1998ˆÌÌ_________________________________ÌÌÌà@dd+ôàINTERCOM€SYSTEMS€CORPORATIONˆÌà@ôô9ôàˆÌÌà@||8ôàv.ˆÌÌÌà@°°*ôàBELL€ATLANTIC€OF€MARYLAND,€INC.ˆÌÌ_________________________________ÌÌññà  àÌññÌà  à¢Sonner£,Ìà  àKrauser,Ìà  àSmith,€Marvin€H.,Ìà  àà p àÔ‡ôª õXXÃÔ(Retired,€specially€assigned)Ð ‚"" ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÃXõôª  #Ôà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ð æ#†  ÐÌ_________________________________ÌÌÌà@ÌÌ.ôàOpinion€by€Krauser,€J.ˆÌÌ_________________________________ÌÌÌà  àFiled:ñ†ñ€December€22,€2000ñ†ñÌÌÐ î-Ž$, Ðñ‰ñÌÌÌÌÌñ‰ñññÒ°ÀÒñññŽñÓÓñŽññŒñà@5ôàò òREPORTEDó óˆÐ `  ÐÌÌà@°°*ôàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ ð  Ðà@``4ôàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ Æ f ÐÌÌÌà@ØØ5ôàNo.€154€€ˆÌÌÌà@DD/ôàSeptember€Term,€1998ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌà@dd+ôàINTERCOM€SYSTEMS€CORPORATIONˆÌà@ôô9ôàˆÌÌà@||8ôàv.ˆÌÌÌà@°°*ôàBELL€ATLANTIC€OF€MARYLAND,€INC.ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌà  àÌÌà  à¢Sonner£,Ìà  à¢Krauser£,Ìà  àSmith,€Marvin€H.,Ìà  àà p àÔ‡ôª1 õXXÐìÔ(Retired,€specially€assigned)Ð X#ø ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÐìX õôª1)#Ôà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ð ¼$\! ÐÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌà@ÌÌ.ôàOpinion€by€¢Krauser£,€J.ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌà  àFiled:ÌÐ î-Ž$, ÐñŒññŠñÐ  `  ÐñŠññŒññ‹ñÒ°ÀÒñ‹ññŒññ‡ñÒ°ÀÒñ‡ññŒñÓÓÑ€€ÏÑñŒñà  àThis€is€an€appeal€from€an€order€of€the€Circuit€Court€forÏPrince€Georgeððs€County,€dismissing€a€complaint€filed€by€appellant,ÏIntercom€Systems€Corporation,€against€appellee,€Bell€Atlantic€ofÏMaryland,€Inc.€(ð ðBell€Atlanticðð),€for€tortious€interference€withÏcontract€or€economic€relations,׃ ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€negligence,€and€breach€ofÐ ° Ðcontract.€€That€dismissal,€the€circuit€court€declared,€wasÏcompelled€by€this€Courtððs€holding€in€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytes€v.€C&PÐ h  ÐTelephoneóó,€97€Md.€App.€557€(1993),€that€the€Public€ServiceÐ  À  ÐCommission€Act€(ð ðActðð),€now€the€Public€Utility€Companies€ArticleÏ(PUC)of€the€Maryland€Code,¢×ƒ n×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€provides€an€exclusive€remedy€for€suchÐ „$ Ðclaims€before€the€Public€Service€Commission€(ð ðCommissionðð€orÏð ð¢PSC£ðð).€€The€circuit€courtððs€reliance€on€that€case€was€appropriateÏand€the€result€it€reached,€under€that€decision,€correct.Ìà  àNonetheless,€in€light€of€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€Ïin€òò¢Zappone£€v.€Liberty€Lifeóó,€349€Md.€45€(1998),€we€now€conclude€thatÐ à € Ðthe€remedy€provided€by€that€Act€is€primary€and€not€exclusive.€Ïâ âAccordingly,€we€shall€reverse€the€judgement€of€the€circuit€courtÐ D$ä  Ðand,€to€the€extent€that€our€decision€in€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó€isÐ `  Ðinconsistent€with€this€opinion,€we€overrule€that€decision.€€Ìâ ââ âÔ& Ì Ôà@””%ìàò òBackgroundó óˆÐ Ä d Ðà  àAppellant,€Intercom€Systems€Corporation,€was€an€internetÏservice€provider€that€conducted€business€in€Clinton,€Maryland.€€AsÏÔ'ÌÄ WÔan€¢internet£€service€provider,€appellant€was€entirely€dependent€onÏlocal€phone€access€service€to€conduct€its€business.€€€That€serviceÏwas€provided€by€Bell€Atlantic,€the€local€exchange€carrier€for€theÏClinton€area.€€Among€other€things,€appellant€relied€on€BellÏAtlantic€to€provide€it€with€regular€telephone€service,€CentrexÏlines,€a€56K€data€link,€and€high€speed€circuits€such€as€frame€relayÏand€T„1€circuits.€€Ìà  àGrowing€increasingly€dissatisfied€with€the€quality€of€theÏservices€provided€by€Bell€Atlantic€and€unhappy€with€the€seemingÏunwillingness€of€Bell€Atlantic€to€provide€other€services€requested,Ïappellant€began€filing€complaints€with€the€Public€ServiceÏCommission.€€The€Commission€is€ð ðan€independent€unit€in€theÏExecutive€Branch€of€State€Government.ðð€€¢PUC£€ðð€2„101.€€Its€functionÏis€to€ð ðsupervise€and€regulate€the€public€service€companies,ðð€¢PUC£€Ïðð€2„113,€such€as€Bell€Atlantic,€pursuant€to€the€Public€UtilityÏâ âCompanies€Act.Ð ø*˜!( Ðà  àOn€February€16,€1995,€appellant,€then€Intercom€Micro€Systems,Ïâ âlodged€seven€informal€complaints€against€Bell€Atlantic€in€a€letterÏto€Frank€Fulton,€Director€of€the€Consumer€Assistance€and€PublicÏAffairs€Office€of€the€Commission.€€In€that€letter,€appellantÏprincipally€claimed€that€Bell€Atlantic:€€1)€provided€telephoneÏlines€that€repeatedly€malfunctioned,€thereby€interruptingÏappellantððs€service€to€its€customers;€2)€re„routed€appellantððsÏtelephone€voice€line€to€one€of€its€competitors;€and€3)€refused€toÏprovide€certain€services€ordered€by€appellant,€such€as€ð ðremoteÏaccess€telephone€numbers,ðð׃ ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€despite€providing€the€same€services€toÐ l  Ðappellantððs€competitors.€Ìà  àIn€response€to€these€complaints,€Fulton€conducted€an€informalÏinvestigation.€€At€the€conclusion€of€that€investigation,€in€aÏletter€to€appellant,€dated€August€31,€1995,€Fulton€stated€that€heÏhad€held€two€conferences€with€the€parties,€and€that€in€responseÏBell€Atlantic€had€agreed€to€ð ðconstruct€and€install€the€hardwareÏneeded€to€expand€[appellantððs]€system.ðð€€He€further€stated€that€theÏinvestigation€was€now€complete€and€that€it€appeared€that€ð ðtheseÏlast€efforts€[by€Bell€Atlantic]€would€resolve€the€problem.ðð€€HeÏthen€concluded€that€letter€by€informing€appellant€that€it€couldÏappeal€his€findings€by€ð ðfiling€a€Formal€Complaint€with€the€PublicÐ Ð*p!( ÐService€Commission€pursuant€to€Code€of€Maryland€Regulations€(COMAR)Ï20.32.01.04M.€and€20.07.03.04.ðð€€Instead,€appellant€sent€a€letterÏto€Fulton,€dated€September€28,€1995,€stating€that€ð ð[t]he€PublicÏService€Commission€has€fulfilled€every€fair€aspect€of€thisÏcomplaint.ððÌà  àNonetheless,€appellantððs€problems€with€Bell€AtlanticÏpersisted.€€From€January€7,€1997,€through€February€24,€1997,Ïappellant€submitted€to€the€Commission€nine€ð ðfilingsðð€whichÏconsisted€of€sixteen€different€complaints€against€Bell€Atlantic.€InÏthose€complaints,€appellant€alleged,€among€other€things,€that€BellÏAtlantic:€€1)€had€refused€to€provide€new€telephone€service;€2)€hadÏmaliciously€disrupted€appellantððs€telephone€service;€3)€had€refusedÏto€repair€broken€facilities€for€appellant;€4)€had€over„billed€andÏincorrectly€billed€appellant€for€services€rendered;€5)€had€refusedÏto€list€appellant€in€both€the€411€Information€Directory€and€theÏBusiness€White€Pages€directory;€and€6)€had€given€preferentialÐ Ð*p!( Ðtreatment€to€appellantððs€competitors.€€According€to€appellant,€BellÏAtlanticððs€conduct€constituted€an€ð ðintentional€and€improperÏinterference€with€the€business€expectations€of€appellant€and€itsÏcustomers,ðð€and€was€part€of€a€deliberate€attempt€to€put€appellant,Ïa€competitor€of€a€subsidiary€of€Bell€Atlanticððs,€out€of€business.€Ìà  àA€second€informal€investigation€by€Fulton€ensued.€€ItÏculminated€in€the€issuance€of€a€final€letter€by€Fulton,€dated€AprilÏ11,€1997,€reviewing€each€of€appellantððs€allegations.€€Among€otherÏthings,€that€letter€indicated€that€on€four€occasions€Bell€AtlanticÏhad€agreed€that€it€had€overbilled€or€issued€incorrect€bills€toÏappellant€and,€as€a€result,€it€had€applied€the€following€credits€toÏappellantððs€accounts:€€$1,477.33,€$1,709.11,€$408.00,€andÏ$1,754.34.€€Notwithstanding€these€discrepancies,€Fulton€concludedÏhis€letter€with€a€statement€that€he€did€ð ðNOT€believe€that€[BellÏAtlantic€had]€failed€to€act€in€good€faith€with€the€customerðð€andÏthat€it€ð ðha[d]€NOT€violated€any€of€its€Commission„approved€tariffsððÏ(emphasis€in€original).€€He€then€informed€appellant€once€again€thatÏit€could€appeal€his€findings€by€filing€a€formal€complaint€with€theÏCommission.€€Ìà  àFive€days€later,€on€April€16,€1997,€appellant€filed€a€lawsuitÏagainst€Bell€Atlantic€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Prince€GeorgeððsÏCounty,€alleging€tortious€interference€with€contract€relations,Ïnegligence,€and€breach€of€contract.׃ ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€dismissal€of€thatÐ Äd Ðcomplaint€lies€at€the€core€of€this€appeal.€Ìà  àNine€days€after€that,€on€April€25,€1997,€appellant€filed€aÏformal€complaint€with€the€Commission€and€re„submitted€the€sixteenÏcomplaints€it€had€previously€filed.€€€Appellantððs€case€was€assignedÏto€a€hearing€examiner,€pursuant€to€¢PUC£€ðð€3„104.׃X×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€the€formalÐ ò’ Ðinvestigation€was€pending,€appellant€added€a€seventeenth€complaint,Ïalleging€that€Bell€Atlanticððs€conduct€was€designed€to€benefit€ð ðBellÏAtlantic€Internet€Solutions,€Inc,ðð€a€subsidiary€of€Bell€AtlanticÏthat,€like€appellant,€is€in€the€business€of€providing€internetÏservice€to€the€public.€Ìà  àIn€this€latest€complaint,€appellant€requested€compensatory€andÏpunitive€damages€for€Bell€Atlanticððs€ð ðdeliberate€and€maliciousððÏconduct.€€After€discovery€was€concluded,€Bell€Atlantic€filed€aÏð ðMotion€for€Summary€Dismissal.ðð€€On€December€23,€1999,€the€hearingÏexaminer€issued€a€twenty„four€page€proposed€order,€granting€BellÏAtlanticððs€motion.€€€In€that€order,€the€examiner€summarized€BellÏAtlanticððs€position€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBell€Atlantic€claims€that€in€all€of€theÏcomplaints,€it€has€undertaken€correctiveÏaction.€€Thus,€where€a€complaint€was€made€asÏto€an€over„billing,€credit€has€been€granted;Ïwhere€a€complaint€was€made€that€services€wereÏnot€provided,€those€services€have€now€beenÏprovided;€and€when€a€complaint€was€made€thatÏactions€were€impacting€negatively€on€a€clientÏof€[appellant],€those€actions€have€ceased.€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€hearing€examiner€then€concluded,€ð ðIn€reviewing€all€[ofÏappellantððs]€complaints,€it€is€clear€that€[Bell€Atlantic]€hasÏresponded€to€each€complaint,€and€any€action€taken€has€properlyÏâ âresolved€the€complaint€.€.€.€[and]€there€is€no€further€action€thatÐ  &p!( Ðneeds€to€be€taken€by€[Bell€Atlantic],€consistent€with€the€tariffs,Ïto€satisfy€any€[of€appellantððs]€complaints.ððÌâ  €€€Before€dismissing€appellantñxñððñxñs€complaints,€however,€the€hearingÏexaminer€noted€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€crux€of€what€[appellant]€claims€shouldÏbe€remedied€involves€an€alleged€pattern,€ongoing€scheme,€or€willfulÏcourse€of€conduct€by€[Bell€Atlantic]€designed€to€destroy€theÏbusiness€of€[appellant].ðð€€It€is€ð ðentirely€understandable,ðð€theÏexaminer€surmised,€that€appellant€drew€this€conclusion€based€onÏBell€Atlanticððs€conduct.€€He€observed€that€Bell€Atlantic€is€aÏð ðsophisticated€company€with€technological€and€management€systems€inÏplace€to€provide€reliable€service€to€its€customersðð€and€that€theÏð ðcumulative€affect€[sic]€of€the€actions€described€in€[appellantððs]Ïcomplaints€certainly€belie€the€standard€of€reliability€expected€ofÏBell€Atlantic.ðð€€He€concluded,€ð ð[¢i]t£€is,€indeed,€very€troublesomeÏthat€this€succession€of€problems€has€occurred.€€Moreover,€it€isÏreasonably€foreseeable€that€the€repeated€problems€could€andÏprobably€did€have€serious€economic€consequences€[for€appellant].ððÌà  àObserving,€however,€that€appellantððs€ð ðclaim€for€economicÏdamage€seeks€to€obtain€a€remedy€that€is€beyond€the€boundary€of€theÏtariffs€or€the€Commissionððs€statutory€authority,ðð€the€examinerÏgranted€Bell€Atlanticððs€motion€for€summary€dismissal.€€€That€orderÏbecame€final€on€January€25,€2000.€€Thereafter,€appellant€filed€aÏpetition€for€judicial€review€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€PrinceÏGeorgeððs€County.€€That€petition€is€still€pending.€€Ð $+t&. Ðà  àAs€noted€earlier,€the€complaint€filed€by€appellant€in€theÏcircuit€court€consisted€of€three€counts:€€tortious€interferenceÏwith€economic€or€contract€relations,€negligence,€and€breach€ofÏcontract.€€In€support€of€its€claim€of€tortious€interference€withÏeconomic€or€contract€relations,€appellant€alleged€that€BellÏAtlantic,€ð ðeither€directly€or€through€a€subsidiary,€is€a€directÏcompetitor€of€[appellant]€in€providing€Internet€access€to€theÏgeneral€public.ðð€€Because€it€is€a€competitor€of€appellant,€it€has,Ïaccording€to€appellant,€intentionally€1)€failed€to€promptly€provideÏnew€or€additional€circuits,€2)€provided€circuits€that€repeatedlyÏfailed,€or€were€of€low€quality,€3)€incorrectly€billed€or€otherwiseÏcharged€appellant€higher€prices€than€appellantððs€competitors,€4)Ïfailed€to€provide€appellant€with€circuits,€while€promptly€providingÏcircuits€for€appellantððs€competitors,€5)€rerouted€or€forwardedÏappellantððs€voice€lines€to€competitors,€and€6)€refused€to€listÏappellant€in€the€White€Pages€or€in€its€411€Information€DirectoryÏlistings.€€Furthermore,€appellant€alleged€that€Bell€AtlanticððsÏactions€were€intended€to€harm€appellant€and€ð ðdone€with€evil€motive,Ïill€will.ðð€€Consequently,€it€demanded€compensatory€and€punitiveÏdamages.€Ìà  àOn€May€23,€1997,€Bell€Atlantic€filed€a€motion€to€dismissÏappellantððs€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€whichÏrelief€can€be€granted.€€In€support€of€that€motion,€Bell€AtlanticÏasserted€that€appellant€had€filed€complaints€with€the€¢PSC£€allegingÐ $+t&. Ðthe€same€conduct€complained€of€in€its€lawsuit€and€that,Ïð ð[¢t]herefore£,€under€the€doctrine€of€exhaustion€of€administrativeÏremedies,€[appellant]€may€only€seek€judicial€review,€if€at€all,Ïfrom€a€final€decision€of€the€agency.ðð€€In€response,€appellantÏasserted€that€its€claims€were€ð ðindependent€of€any€¢PSC£€regulationððÏand€that€ð ðthe€¢PSC£€cannot€provide,€to€any€substantial€degree,€aÏremedy.ðð€€€For€those€reasons,€appellant€maintained€that€it€shouldÏbe€permitted€to€proceed€with€its€cause€of€action.Ìà  àOn€November€14,€1997,€at€the€hearing€on€Bell€Atlanticððs€motionÏto€dismiss,€appellant€argued€that€Bell€Atlantic€had€intentionallyÏviolated€administrative€rules€and€tariffs€in€an€effort€to€destroyÏappellant.€It€conceded,€however,€that€the€¢PSC£ððs€formalÏinvestigation€should€be€permitted€to€proceed€to€a€conclusion.€€ItÏtherefore€requested€that€the€circuit€court€stay€its€lawsuit€pendingÏthe€outcome€of€the€on„going€administrative€proceedings,€rather€thanÏdismiss€it.€€Ìà  àAfter€hearing€argument,€the€circuit€court€stated€that€it€wasÏð ðconstrained€by€the€decision€contained€in€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó€.€.€.€[toÐ !l" Ðfind]€that€the€allegations€raised€in€the€complaint€are€within€theÏexclusive€jurisdiction€of€the€Public€Service€Commissionðð€€and,€onÏthat€basis,€dismissed€the€complaint.€€Appellant€now€appeals€thatÏdismissal.Ìâ âÐ „)Ô$, ÐÔ&   Ôâ âà@””%ìàò òDiscussionˆÐ ° Ðó óà  àThe€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€administrative€remedyÐ xÈ Ðprovided€by€the€¢PUC£€Article€before€the€Commission€is€exclusive,Ô' °EÔÏprimary,€or€concurrent.€€If€primary€or€concurrent,€as€appellantÏcontends,€the€circuit€court€erred€in€dismissing€appellantððsÏcomplaint.€€Because€we€find€that€the€remedy€in€question€is€primary,Ïappellantððs€request€that€the€proceedings€before€that€court€beÏstayed€(and€not€dismissed)€pending€appellantððs€exhaustion€of€theÏCommissionððs€administrative€remedy,€should€have€been€granted.Ìà  àBefore€proceeding€with€an€analysis€of€the€issues€before€us,Ïhowever,€we€note€that€the€circuit€court€and€the€parties€addressedÏthe€question€of€exhaustion€of€administrative€remedies€in€terms€ofÏwhether€the€Commission€has€exclusive,€primary,€or€concurrentÏð ðjurisdictionðð€over€appellantððs€claims.€€The€use€of€the€termÏð ðjurisdictionðð€is€misleading.€€We€are€dealing€here€not€with€ð ðaÏlimitation€upon€the€subject€matter€jurisdictionðð€but€with€theÏnature€of€the€available€administrative€remedy.€€òòMaryland„¢Natððl£€Cap.Ð ŒÜ  ÐP€&€P€¢Commððn£€v.€Crawfordóó,€307€Md.€1,€13€n.4€(1986).€€As€we€haveÐ D!”" Ðpreviously€observed,€€ð ð[A]€court€is€usually€not€without€subjectÏmatter€jurisdiction€to€consider€an€original€civil€suit€brought€byÏa€party€who€has€failed€to€exhaust€his€exclusive€administrativeÏremedies.ðð€€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó,€97€Md.€App.€at€567.€€Admittedly,Ð (P#* Ðhowever,€the€exhaustion€doctrine€ð ðis€for€some€purposes€treated€likeÏa€jurisdictional€issue.ðð€òòCrawfordóó,€307€Md.€at€13„14,€n.4.€Ð d+´&. ÐMoreover,€if€properly€invoked,€it€may€require€the€trial€court€toÏdismiss€or€stay€the€action€before€it.€€Nonetheless,€it€should€beÏreemphasized€that€the€terms€ð ðexclusive,ðð€ð ðprimary,ðð€andÏð ðconcurrentðð€apply€only€to€the€administrative€remedy€available€toÏthe€claimant€and€do€not€impose€any€limitation€on€the€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€of€the€courts.€€ÌÌà@°°*ìàò òIó óˆÐ d´  Ðà  àThe€exhaustion€of€remedies€doctrine€requires€that€ð ðone€mustÏexhaust€statutorily€prescribed€administrative€remedies€beforeÏresorting€to€the€courts.ðð€€òòMaryland€¢Commððn£€on€Human€Rel.€v.€DowneyÐ „Ô ÐCommunications,€Inc.,óó€110€Md.€App.€493,€526€(1996);€òòsee€alsoÐ <Œ ТMcCullough£€v.€¢Wittner£,€óó314€Md.€602€(1989).€€In€other€words,Ð ôD Ðð ðordinarily€a€party€must€pursue€the€prescribed€administrativeÏprocedure€to€its€conclusion€and€await€its€final€outcome€.€.€.€Ï[and]€a€party€can€resort€to€a€court€only€when€there€is€a€finalÏorder€in€the€administrative€proceeding.ðð€€òòMaryland€¢Commððn£€on€HumanÐ °  ÐRel.€v.€Baltimore€Gas€and€Electric€Co.,€óó296€Md.€46,€51€(1983).€€Ð h!¸" Ðà  àThe€rationale€underlying€the€doctrine€is:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€decisions€of€an€administrative€agency€areÏoften€of€a€discretionary€nature,€andÏfrequently€require€an€expertise€which€theÏagency€can€bring€to€bear€in€sifting€theÏinformation€presented€to€it.€€The€agencyÏshould€be€afforded€the€initial€opportunity€toÏexercise€that€discretion€and€to€apply€thatÏexpertise.€€Furthermore,€to€permitÏinterruption€for€purposes€of€judicialÏintervention€at€various€stages€of€theÐ R,¢'/ Ðadministrative€process€might€well€undermineÏthe€very€efficiency€which€the€LegislatureÏintended€to€achieve€in€the€first€instance.€ÏLastly,€the€courts€might€be€called€upon€toÏdecide€issues€which€perhaps€would€never€ariseÏif€the€prescribed€administrative€remedies€wereÏfollowed.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòò¢Soley£€v.€State€¢Commððn£€on€Human€Rel.óó,€277€Md.€521,€526€(1976).€Ð ` ° ÐÌà@tt)ìàò òIIó óˆÐ Ä  Ðà  àIn€Maryland,€the€Legislature€has€ð ðcreated€[a]€comprehensiveÏand€detailed€administrative€machinery€for€the€regulation€of€publicÏutilities€throughout€the€State.ðð€€òò¢Spintman£€v.€C&P€Telephoneóó,€254Ð ä4 ÐMd.€423,€427€(1969).€€That€administrative€machinery€is€set€forth€inÏðððð€1„101€to€13„207€of€the€¢PUC£€Article€of€the€Maryland€Code.׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РH˜ ÐPursuant€to€that€Act,€the€Commission€is€expressly€authorized€toÏsupervise€and€regulate€all€public€utility€companies€in€Maryland.Ï¢PUC£€ðð€2„113€¢×ƒô×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€For€that€purpose,€it€is€granted€ð ðthe€implied€andÐ Lœ Ðincidental€powers€needed€or€proper€to€carry€out€its€functions€underÏthis€article.ðð€€¢PUC£€ðð€2„112׃è ×Ý ƒÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àAs€to€the€handling€of€complaints€against€public€utilityÏcompanies,€the€Commission€is€authorized€to€receive€a€complaint€fromÏany€person,€¢PUC£€ðð€3„102€(a),€or€it€may€proceed€on€its€own€motion,€Ï¢PUC£€ðð€3„102(e),€to€conduct€an€investigation,€¢PUC£€ðð€2„115.€€InÏfurtherance€of€that€investigation,€it€may€serve€process,€¢PUC£€ðð€3„¼103,€conduct€hearings,€¢PUC£€ðð€3„104€,€and€issue€subpoenas€to€compelÏtestimony€or€the€production€of€documents.€¢PUC£€ðð€3„109.€€After€theÏCommission€has€issued€a€decision€or€order,€any€party,€dissatisfiedÐ ¼  Ðwith€the€result€reached€by€the€Commission,€may€petition€the€circuitÏcourt€for€judicial€review€of€that€decision€or€order.€Ìà  àThe€scope€of€that€review€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  à€à8` Ð Ð àEvery€final€decision,€order,€or€regulation€ofÐ ´  Ðthe€Commission€is€prima€facie€correct€andÏshall€be€affirmed€unless€clearly€shown€to€be:Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(1)€unconstitutional;Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(2)€outside€the€statutory€authorityÏor€jurisdiction€of€the€Commission;€Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(3)€made€on€unlawful€procedure;Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(4)€arbitrary€or€capricious;Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà(5)€affected€by€other€error€of€law,ÏorÐ ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà ` àà8¸ ¸ ¸ à(6)€if€the€subject€of€review€is€anÏorder€entered€in€a€contestedÏproceeding€after€a€hearing,€theÏorder€is€unsupported€by€substantialÏevidence€on€the€record€considered€asÏa€whole.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌ¢PUC£€ðð€3„203.Ì€€ÌÓÓà  àThus,€the€Act€creates€a€comprehensive€but,€as€we€shall€see,Ïnot€an€exclusive€system€for€the€resolution€of€complaints€againstÏthe€public€utility€companies.€€ÌÌà@88)ìàò òIIIó óˆÐ !l" Ðà  àThe€circuit€court€dismissed€appellantððs€complaint€on€theÏground€that€the€Commission€had€exclusive€ð ðjurisdictionðð€over€theÏclaims€raised€in€that€complaint.€€In€so€ruling,€the€circuit€courtÏrelied€exclusively€on€our€decision€in€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó.€€The€facts€ofÐ è'8#* Ðthat€case€are€as€follows.€€Bits€ð ðNðð€Bytesðð€(ð ð¢BNB£ðð),€a€supplier€ofÏcomputers€and€computer€parts,€had€entered€into€a€series€ofÐ L+œ&. Ðdirectory€advertising€contracts€with€the€Chesapeake€&€Potomac€andÏTelephone€Co.€of€Maryland€(ð ðC&Pðð).€€òòIdóó.€at€561.€€€When€BNB€failedÐ \¬ Ðto€pay€money€owed€C&P€pursuant€to€those€contracts,€C&P€cut€off€itsÏtelephone€service€and€filed€suit€against€BNB€in€the€District€CourtÏof€Maryland€to€collect€that€money.€€òòIdóó.€at€562.€€Upon€BNBððs€requestÐ l ¼ Ðfor€a€jury€trial,€the€case€was€removed€to€the€circuit€court€whereÏBNB€filed€a€counterclaim.€€òòIdóó.€at€561„62.€€In€that€counterclaim,Ð Ð  ÐBNB€made€the€following€allegations:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à¢BNB£€.€.€.€asserted€that€C€&€P€falsely€advisedÏBNB€that€C€&€P€had€a€right€to€interrupt€BNBððsÏtelephone€service€if€BNB€failed€to€pay€itsÏdirectory€advertising€bill,€which€led€BNB€toÏterminate€its€Baltimore€area€telephoneÏservice.€€Additionally,€BNB€asserted€that€C€&ÏPððs€ð ðillegal€threats€and€false€claimsððÏconstituted€a€breach€of€its€directoryÏadvertising€contracts€with€BNB€and€caused€BNBÏto€suffer€ð ða€substantial€loss€of€profits,€asÏwell€as€other€incidental€and€consequentialÏdamages.ðð€€BNB€asked€that€its€directoryÏadvertising€contract€with€C€&€P€be€rescindedÏ(Count€I),€or€alternatively€that€BNB€beÏawarded€ð ðconsequential€damages€of€$20,000"€andÏð ðincidental€damages€of€$5,000€and€costsððÏsustained€because€of€C€&€Pððs€breach€of€theÏcontracts€(Count€II).€€Finally,€BNB€assertedÏthat€C€&€Pððs€ð ðthreat€to€interrupt€service€andÏactual€interruptionðð€of€BNBððs€serviceÏð ðconstituted€intentional€interference€withÏ[BNBððs]€business€relations€and€prospectiveÏadvantageðð€because,€as€C€&€P€ð ðwell€knew,ððÏBNBððs€business€ð ðwas€primarily€conducted€on€theÏtelephoneðð;€on€this€count€(Count€III)€BNBÏclaimed€ð ðconsequential€damages€of€$20,000,Ïincidental€damages€of€$5,000€and€punitiveÏdamages€of€$1,000,000€and€costs.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌâ âÓÓòòIdóó.€at€562.Ð r*Â%- Ðà  àUltimately,€the€circuit€court€dismissed€and€later€refused€toÏâ âreinstate€BNBððs€complaint€because€of€its€failure€to€exhaustÏadministrative€remedies.€€òòIdóó.€at€565€€€BNB€appealed€that€decision.€Ð X Ðà  àRelying€on€a€line€of€cases€holding€that,€if€a€specificÏstatutory€remedy€is€provided€with€limited€judicial€review,€thatÏstatutory€remedy€is€exclusive,€òòSec.,€¢Depððt£€of€Human€Res.€v.€Wilsonóó,Ð  h  Ð286€Md.€639€(1979);€òòWhite€v.€Prince€Georgeððs€Countyóó,€282€Md.€641Ð Ð  Ð(1978);€òòMaryland€„€Natððl€Cap.€Park€&€Planning€Commððn€v.€Wash.€¢Natððl£Ð ˆØ  ÐArenaóó,€282€Md.€588€(1978);€òòSolely€v.€St.€Commððn€on€Human€Rel.,Ð @  Ðsupraóó,€this€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€circuit€court,Ð øH Ðdismissing€BNBððs€counterclaim,€on€the€ground€ð ðthat€the€PublicÏService€Commission€Act€provides€the€exclusive€remedy€forÏdetermination€of€BNBððs€claims€that€C&P€violated€a€PSC€regulation.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€582.€€€That€decision€was€rendered€before€the€Court€ofÐ ´ ÐAppeals€decided€òòZappone€v.€Liberty€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€349€Md.€45Ð l¼ Ð(1998).€€The€circuit€court,€as€appellant€noted€in€its€brief,€ð ðdidÏnot€have€the€advantage€of€the€òòZappone€óóroadmapðð€when€it€rendered€itsÐ Ð   Ðdecision.€€Fortunately,€we€do.Ìà  àIn€òòZapponeóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated€that€ð ðthere€is€a€legalÐ 4#„$ Ðpresumption€that€a€statutory€administrative€and€judicial€reviewÏremedy€is€intended€to€be€primary,ðð€not€exclusive,€and€thereby€heldÏthat€the€line€of€cases€relied€upon€by€this€Court€in€reaching€aÏcontrary€conclusion€in€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó€is€no€longer€controlling.€Ð ð)@%, ÐòòIdóó.,€349€Md.€at€67.€€Further,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated€inÐ ¨+ø&. ÐZappone€that€it€was€simply€incorrect€when€the€Court€asserted€inÏòòSec.,€Depððt€of€Human€Res.€v.€Wilson,€supra€óóthat€ð ð[¢o]rdinarily£,Ð \¬ Ðwhere€a€statutory€administrative€remedy€is€provided,€it€would€beÏdeemed€exclusive.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€63,€n.7.€€€The€facts€of€òòZapponeóó€are€asÐ À  Ðfollows.€€Ìà  à¢Zappone£,€a€62„year„old€businessman,€was€induced€by€theÏfraudulent€misrepresentations€of€a€licensed€general€agent€ofÏLiberty€Life€Insurance€Company€to€purchase€a€large€life€insuranceÏpolicy.€€òòIdóó.€at€52„56.€€Upon€discovering€that€he€had€been€duped,Ð (x  ÐZappone€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€MontgomeryÏCounty€against€the€agent,€Liberty€Life,€and€First€Financial,€theÏlicensed€managing€general€agency,€for€fraud,€negligentÏmisrepresentation,€and€negligence.€€òòIdóó.€at€56.€€After€dismissingÐ ä4 Ðone€count€and€granting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendantsÏon€two€other€counts,€the€circuit€court€granted€the€defendantsððÏmotion€to€dismiss€the€remaining€counts€of€the€complaint€becauseÏð ðthe€remedial€provisions€of€the€Insurance€Code€constituted€theÏexclusive€remedy€for€all€claims€of€unfair€or€deceptive€tradeÏpractices€by€insurers€or€insurance€agents€in€connection€with€theÏsale€of€insurance.ðð€€€òòIdóó.€at€57.€€On€appeal,€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ¤$ô& Ðreversed€the€judgment€of€the€circuit€court€on€the€ground€that€theÏstatutory€remedy€provided€by€the€Insurance€Code€was€neitherÏexclusive€nor€primary€but€concurrent€with€any€judicial€remedy€thatÏZappone€had.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€Ð `+°&. Ðà  àThe€Court€began€its€analysis€of€Zapponeððs€claims€by€explainingÏthat€ð ð[w]henever€the€Legislature€provides€an€administrative€andÏjudicial€review€remedy€for€a€particular€matter€or€matters,€theÏrelationship€between€that€administrative€remedy€and€a€possibleÏalternative€judicial€remedy€will€ordinary€fall€into€one€of€threeÏcategories.ðð€€349€Md.€at€60.€€The€administrative€remedy€may€beÏexclusive,€primary,€or€concurrent.€€òòIdóó.€at€60„61.€Ð ¸  Ðà  àIf€the€administrative€remedy€is€exclusive€then€the€complainantÏis€precluded€from€filing€an€independent€action€in€the€courts,€evenÏafter€exhausting€administrative€remedies.€€òòIdóó.€at€60.€€€In€òòZapponeóó,Ð È Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals€stated€that€an€administrative€remedy€is€notÏpresumptively€exclusive.€ð ð[W]here€neither€the€statutory€languageÏnor€the€legislative€history€disclose€an€intent€that€theÏadministrative€remedy€is€to€be€exclusive,€and€where€there€is€anÏalternative€judicial€remedy€under€another€statute€or€under€commonÏlaw€or€equitable€principles,€there€is€no€presumption€that€theÏadministrative€remedy€was€intended€to€be€exclusive.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€63.Ð ˆØ  ÐÓ! °,X›X°œX!Óà  àIf€an€administrative€remedy€is€primary€and€not€exclusive,€theÏcomplainant€may€seek€redress€by€filing€an€independent€judicialÏaction.€€òòIdóó.€at€60.€€The€complainant€must€first,€however,€ð ðinvokeÐ ˜$è& Ðand€exhaust€the€administrative€remedy,€and€seek€judicial€review€ofÏan€adverse€administrative€decision,€before€a€court€can€properlyÏadjudicate€the€merits€of€the€alternative€judicial€remedy.ðð€òò€Idóó.€Ð ¨)ø$, ÐMoreover,€in€the€absence€of€statutory€or€legislative€history€to€theÐ `+°&. Ðcontrary,€the€Court€stated€that€there€is€ð ða€presumption€that€theÏadministrative€remedy€is€intended€to€be€primary,€and€that€aÏclaimant€cannot€maintain€the€alternative€judicial€action€withoutÏfirst€invoking€and€exhausting€the€administrative€remedy.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÐ ´  Ð63.€€In€determining€whether€that€presumption€has€been€rebutted,€theÏCourt€directs€us€to€consider€the€following€factors:€1)€ð ð[t]heÏcomprehensiveness€of€Ô_Ôthe€administrative€remedy;ðð€2)€ð ðtheÏadministrative€agencyððs€view€of€its€own€jurisdiction;ðð€and€3)€ð ðtheÏnature€of€the€alternative€judicial€cause€of€action€pursued€by€theÏplaintiff,ðð€that€is,€whether€the€ð ðaction€is€wholly€or€partiallyÏdependent€upon€the€statutory€scheme€which€also€contains€theÏadministrative€remedy,€or€upon€the€expertise€of€the€administrativeÏagency.ðð€òò€Idóó.€at€64„65.€Ð Ì Ðà  àFinally,€if€the€administrative€remedy€and€the€judicial€remedyÏare€concurrent,€ð ðthe€plaintiff€at€his€or€her€option€may€pursue€theÏjudicial€remedy€without€the€necessity€of€invoking€and€exhaustingÏthe€administrative€remedy.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€61.€€In€determining€whether€theÐ ˆØ  Ðadministrative€remedy€is€concurrent€and€not€primary,€the€courtÏobserved€that€it€has€held€an€administrative€remedy€to€be€concurrentÏð ðwhere€the€alternative€judicial€remedy€is€entirely€independent€ofÏthe€statutory€scheme€containing€the€administrative€remedy,€and€theÏexpertise€of€the€administrative€agency€is€not€particularly€relevantÏto€the€judicial€cause€of€action.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€65.€Ð œ)ì$, ÐÐ T+¤&. Ðà@tt)ìàò òIVó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€the€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔadministrativeÏremedy€in€question€is€exclusive.€€As€previously€noted,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€stated€in€òòÔ_Ô¢Zappone£Ô_Ôóó,€ð ð[¢O]rdinarily£€a€statutory€administrativeÐ Ð  Ðand€judicial€review€remedy€will€be€treated€as€exclusive€only€whenÏthe€Legislature€has€indicated€that€the€administrative€remedy€isÏexclusive€or€when€there€exists€no€other€recognized€alternativeÏstatutory,€common„law€or€equitable€cause€of€action.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€62.€€Ð ŒÜ  ÐIn€other€words,€the€mere€existence€of€such€a€remedy€does€not,€asÏhas€been€suggested€in€other€opinions€of€this€court,€establish€itsÏexclusivity€unless€one€or€both€of€the€aforesaid€conditions€are€met.Ìà  àUnlike€some€other€Maryland€statutes,€the€Act€contains€noÏlanguage€stating€that€the€administrative€and€judicial€review€remedyÏcontained€therein€is€exclusive.€€òòSee€e.g.€óóMd.€Code€Ann.,€(1957,Ð  ð Ð1996€Repl.€Vol.,€1999€Supp.),€Article€¢25A£,€ðð€5(U)€and€€Article€27,Ïðððð€727€„€¢734D£.€€Nor€is€there€any€indication€in€the€legislativeÏhistory€of€that€statute€that€the€remedy€was€to€be€so€construed.€ÏFurthermore,€in€this€case,€there€is€ð ðan€alternative€judicialÏremedyðð€Ô_ÔunderÔ_Ô€common€law€principles,€namely,€the€three€causes€ofÏactions€set€forth€in€appellantððs€complaint:€€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€interferenceÏwith€economic€or€contract€relations,€breach€of€contract,€andÏnegligence.€€Ìà  àFinally,€we€add€that€it€is€highly€unlikely€that€theÏLegislature,€in€creating€the€administrative€remedy€in€question€toÐ d+´&. Ðaddress€regulatory€problems€and€common€consumer€complaints€beforeÏthe€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô,€intended€to€shield€the€public€utility€companies€andÏtheir€subsidiaries€from€lawful€competition.€€But€thatððs€preciselyÏwhat€would€occur€if€we€found€the€Ô_ÔPSCÔ_Ô€remedy€to€be€exclusive.€€To€soÏrule€would,€in€effect,€leave€their€competitors,€big€and€small,Ïwithout€any€means€of€seeking€economic€redress€even€when,€asÏallegedly€occurred€here,€they€have€been€economically€damaged,€or€inÏsome€cases€even€driven€out€of€business,€by€the€practices€of€aÏpublic€utility€company.€€Indeed,€the€Commission€found€this€aspectÏof€appellantððs€complaint€deeply€troubling.€€In€its€final€order,€theÏCommission€asserted€that,€given€Bell€Atlanticððs€conduct,Ïappellantððs€belief€that€Bell€Atlantic€was€engaged€in€an€ð ðongoingÏscheme,€or€willful€course€of€conduct€.€.€.€designed€to€destroyÏ[appellantððs]€businessðð€was€ð ðentirely€understandableñyñ.ñyñððñzñ.ñzñ€€It€alsoÏexpressed€skepticism€concerning€Bell€Atlanticððs€claim€that€it€hadÏnot€intentionally€sought€to€damage€appellant,€observing€that€BellÏAtlantic€is€a€ð ðsophisticated€company€with€technological€andÏmanagement€systems€in€place€to€provide€reliable€service€to€itsÏcustomersðð€and€that€the€ð ðcumulative€effect€of€the€actions€describedÏin€[appellantððs]€complaints€certainly€belie€the€standard€ofÏreliability€expected€of€Bell€Atlantic.ðð€€The€Commission€furtherÏstated,€ð ðit€is,€indeed,€very€troublesome€that€the€succession€ofÏproblems€has€occurred.ðð€€Acknowledging€that€ð ðit€is€reasonablyÏforeseeable€that€the€repeated€problems€could€and€probably€did€haveÐ $+t&. Ðserious€economic€consequences€[for€appellant],ðð€the€Commission€Ïreluctantly€concluded€that€it€lacked€ð ðthe€statutory€authorityðð€toÏorder€the€economic€redress€requested€by€appellant€and€thereforeÏdismissed€that€claim€along€with€others€that€Bell€Atlantic€hadÏapparently€rectified.€In€sum,€neither€statutory€language€norÏlegislative€history€nor€sound€public€policy€supports€a€finding€byÏthis€Court€that€the€Ô_ÔPSCÔ_Ô€administrative€remedy€is€or€should€beÏexclusive.€Ìà  àThe€next€question€for€our€consideration€is€whether€theÏadministrative€remedy€provided€by€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€is€primary€orÏconcurrent.€€As€noted€earlier,€ð ðthere€is€a€legal€presumption€thatÏa€statutory€administrative€and€judicial€review€remedy€is€intendedÏto€be€primary.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€67.€€We€must€therefore€presume€that€theÐ À ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔCommissionððs€administrative€remedy€is€primary€and€apply€the€òòÔ_ÔZapponeÔ_ÔóóÐ xÈ Ðfactors€to€determine€the€validity€of€that€presumption.€€AsÏpreviously€stated,€the€first€factor€to€be€considered€is€theÏcomprehensiveness€of€the€administrative€remedy.€€ð ðA€veryÏcomprehensive€administrative€remedial€scheme€is€some€indicationÏthat€the€Legislature€intended€the€administrative€remedy€to€beÏprimary,€whereas€a€non„comprehensive€administrative€scheme€suggestsÏthe€contrary.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€64.€€Indisputably,€the€Public€ServiceÐ 8&ˆ!( ÐCommission€Act€created€ð ða€very€comprehensive€administrativeÏremedial€scheme.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€òòBits€ð ðNðð€Bytesóó,€this€Court€outlined€theÐ œ)ì$, Ðinclusive€nature€of€that€remedial€scheme:€Ð T+¤&. ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[¢T]he£€Ô_Ô¢PSC£Ô_Ô€is€specifically€empowered€to€makeÏand€enforce€regulations€ð ðnecessary€to€carryÏout€the€provisions€of€the€[Act],ðð€includingÏð ðstandards€of€safe,€adequate,€reasonable,€andÏproper€service.ðð€[¢PUC£€ððñ{ñ€ñ{ñ2„112€and€5„101]€€TheÏÔ_ÔPSCÔ_Ô€is€to€receive€all€complaints€alleging€aÏviolation€of€the€Act€(including€theÏregulations€promulgated€pursuant€to€it)€andÏð ðtake€final€actionðð€directing€ð ðfull€or€partialÏsatisfactionðð€or€ð ðsuch€action€as€may€beÏwarranted.ðð€[¢PUC£€ððñ|ñ€ñ|ñ3„102].€€ð ðIn€any€contestedÏcase€begun€by€complaint,€filed€by€any€personÏor€by€the€Commission,€the€person€complained€ofÏshall€be€entitled€to€a€hearing,ðð€[¢PUC£€ððñ}ñ€ñ}ñ3„¼102];€any€party€to€a€proceeding€has€the€ð ðrightÏto€summon€witnesses,€present€evidence,ðð€crossÏexamine€witnesses,€take€depositions€etc.€[¢PUC£Ïððñ~ñ€ñ~ñ3„102€€ð ðAny€party€or€any€person€in€interestððÏdissatisfied€with€a€final€Ô_ÔPSCÔ_Ô€decision€isÏentitled€to€judicial€review€of€that€decision.€Ï[¢PUC£€ððññ€ññ3„202].€Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ¡™Ó97€Md.€App.€at€568.€Ìà  àThe€second€factor€for€us€to€consider€is€the€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔCommissionððs€viewÏof€its€own€jurisdiction.€€òòÔ_ÔZapponeÔ_Ôóó,€349€Md.€at€Ô_ÔÔ_Ô65.€€In€the€case€òòsubÐ l¼ Ðjudiceóó,€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€considered€almost€all€of€the€underlyingÐ $t Ðfactual€allegations€in€appellantððs€judicial€complaint,€duringÏeither€the€informal€Ô_ÔPSCÔ_Ô€investigation€in€1995€or€its€formal€reviewÏof€appellantððs€complaints€in€1997.€€The€only€claim€that€theÏÔ_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€declined€to€consider€was€that€Bell€Atlantic€was€engagedÏin€an€ð ðongoing€scheme,€or€willful€course€of€conduct€.€.€.€designedÏto€destroy€the€business€of€[appellant],ðð€because€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_ÔÏlacked€jurisdiction€to€award€punitive€and€consequential€damages.€ÏThus,€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€viewed€its€authority€as€encompassing€all€butÏone€of€€appellantððs€many€complaints.€Ð <+Œ&. Ðà  àFinally,€we€consider€the€third€and€last€factor:€€whetherÏappellantððs€ð ðaction€is€wholly€or€partially€dependent€upon€theÏstatutory€scheme€which€also€contains€[its]€administrative€remedy€orÏupon€the€expertise€of€the€administrative€agency.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€65.Ð ´  ÐUnquestionably,€most€of€appellantððs€claims€were€based€on€servicesÏBell€Atlantic€was€required€to€provide€under€the€Act.€€Moreover,€itÏis€beyond€cavil€that€many€of€appellantððs€claims€required€theÏexpertise€of€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€to€evaluate€because€they€involved,Ïamong€other€things,€providing€faulty€circuits€or€failing€to€provideÏnew€or€additional€circuits€and€then€Ô_ÔoverbillingÔ_Ô€or€incorrectlyÏbilling€for€the€circuits€provided.€€Thus,€the€instant€caseÏfactually€stands€in€stark€contrast€to€òòÔ_Ô¢Zappone£Ô_Ôóó€in€which€the€Court€ofÐ  p ÐAppeals€found€the€administrative€remedy€in€question€to€beÏconcurrent.€In€so€finding,€the€Court€stressed€that€ð ð[t]heÏplaintiffsðð€asserted€causes€of€action€in€deceit€and€negligenñ€ñceñ€ñññtññÏ[that€were]€wholly€independent€of€the€Insurance€Codeððs€Unfair€TradeÏPractices€subtitleðð€and€that€ð ðno€interpretations€or€applications€ofÏthe€Insurance€Code€or€of€any€regulations€by€the€InsuranceÏCommissioner€[were]€involved.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€67.€Ð à"0$ Ðà  àAfter€applying€the€factors€promulgated€by€the€Court€of€AppealsÏin€òòÔ_ÔZapponeÔ_Ôóó€for€determining€the€relationship€between€administrativeÐ D&”!( Ðand€independent€judicial€remedies,€we€conclude€that€the€Ô_ÔPSCÔ_ÔÏadministrative€remedy€is€primary€and€not€exclusive€or€concurrent.€ÏTherefore,€appellant€is€required€first€to€exhaust€theÐ T+¤&. Ðadministrative€remedy€provided€by€the€Act€before€resorting€toÏindependent€judicial€action.€€Ìà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€appellant€first€invoked€theÐ X Ðadministrative€remedy€of€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ô€as€it€was€required€to€do€byÏlaw.€€It€did€not,€however,€exhaust€that€remedy€before€filing€theÏcomplaint€at€issue€in€the€circuit€court.€€In€fact,€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_ÔððsÏproposed€order€became€final€while€this€appeal€was€pending.€ÏAppellant€thereafter€appealed€the€Ô_ÔCommissionÔ_Ôððs€decision€to€theÏcircuit€court€for€the€limited€judicial€review€provided€by€the€Act.€ÏOnce€that€review€is€completed,€appellant€may€pursue€an€independent€Ïaction€in€the€circuit€court.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgmentÏof€the€circuit€court,€dismissing€appellantððs€complaint,€and€remandÏthis€case€to€the€circuit€court€with€directions€to€stay€allÏproceedings€until€appellant€has€exhausted€the€administrative€remedyÏin€question.€ÌÒ°ÒÓÓò òJUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ Ð  ÐFOR€PRINCE€GEORGEððS€COUNTYÏREVERSED,€AND€CASE€REMANDED€TOÏTHAT€COURT€FOR€PROCEEDINGSÏCONSISTENT€WITH€THIS€OPINION.ÌÌCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLEE.ÌÌó óÒ°Ò