CENTRE COUNTY, PA — FirstEnergy Service Company is denying responsibility in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the death of a recent Penn State graduate who was electrocuted after contacting a downed power line in Pine Grove Mills last year.
The company filed its response in Centre County Court this month. In that filing, it rejects the lawsuit’s claim that FirstEnergy Service Company owned, operated or maintained the power lines, poles and related equipment involved in the March 16, 2025, incident.
The response also asks the court to dismiss the claims against the company. FirstEnergy says the fatal event was caused or contributed to by weather, including severe thunderstorms, and by the actions of the people involved.
Company says other utilities handled the equipment
According to FirstEnergy Service Company, the equipment at issue was not its responsibility. The company says those duties belonged instead to West Penn Power and FirstEnergy Pennsylvania Electric Company.
It argues that FirstEnergy Service Company provides model policies, procedures and engineering guidance to West Penn Power, but does not own electrical equipment or supply electricity. That distinction is central to its defense against the estate’s claims.
The filing is aimed at separating corporate roles within the FirstEnergy family of companies. The company’s position is that the lawsuit names the wrong entity for alleged negligence connected to the downed line.
How the March 16, 2025, incident unfolded
The lawsuit was brought by the estate of Gelin Tong, 23, and by his girlfriend, Xianwen Zhag. It says a storm brought down power lines on South Water Street before the pair came upon a fallen tree blocking the road while returning to Penn State from Virginia.
When their electric vehicle did not have enough battery power to take another route, the complaint says they tried to walk around the tree through the woods. The suit alleges that Tong then came into contact with an electrical line suspended above their path.
According to the complaint, that contact caused his death. The filing does not dispute that the incident was fatal, but it does dispute who was legally responsible for the equipment and the conditions that led to it.
Wrongful death claim seeks damages from multiple allegations
The estate’s lawsuit seeks damages under wrongful death, survival and negligence claims. Those claims are typical in fatal-injury litigation and are intended to address both the death itself and related losses tied to the incident.
FirstEnergy Service Company says it should not face liability for those claims. In its response, the company denied the allegations of negligence and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit as it applies to that defendant.
The case now turns on the legal question of whether the company had any ownership, operational or maintenance role in the power infrastructure involved in the March 2025 death.
Dispute centers on responsibility for power lines and poles
The company’s filing says FirstEnergy Service Company did not own electrical equipment and did not supply electricity. Instead, it says it acted in a support role by providing policy and engineering guidance.
That defense matters because the lawsuit accuses the company of failing to keep the power lines and associated equipment safe. By denying those duties, FirstEnergy Service Company is trying to remove itself from the chain of responsibility alleged in the complaint.
In a separate argument, the company says severe thunderstorms and weather conditions played a role in bringing the line down in the first place. It is using that point to support its contention that the fatal incident was not caused solely by any action or omission on its part.
Girlfriend’s distress claim also challenged by the company
In addition to contesting the negligence and wrongful death claims, FirstEnergy Service Company argues that Zhag does not qualify for recovery under Pennsylvania law on her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
That legal argument targets one part of the lawsuit beyond the death claim itself. It suggests the company believes her personal injury-related allegation does not meet the standard required under state law.
The court will have to sort through both the factual dispute over responsibility and the separate legal arguments over which claims can proceed. For now, the filing places the company firmly in opposition to the estate’s attempt to hold it liable.
