shape
shape
shape
shape
shape
shape
14 July 2026 / Amanda R. Yurechko

Ohio One Call Law Changes Expand the Definition of Excavation

Ohio House Bill 227 went into effect June 9, 2026 amending some of the language in Ohio’s One Call Law (O.R.C. 3781.25 et seq.) and Ohio’s Public Improvement Law (O.R.C. 153.64). Much of the publicity around the change to the One Call Law focuses on the change to the definition of “Working days” under O.R.C. 3781.25(F), which will now be defined to, “begin at midnight, end at eleven fifty-nine p.m. on the same date and exclude weekends and legal holidays…”1

O.R.C. 3781.28(A) [and the corresponding O.R.C. 153.64(C)] was amended to require notice of excavation by an excavator, “…at least two working days, not including the day of the notification, but not more than sixteen calendar days before commencing excavation…”  Therefore, after June 9, 2026 an excavator under the statute will contact the Ohio Utilities Protection Service, on day one, then begin counting the two-day waiting period the next day, excluding weekends and holidays. Additionally, this amendment changes the length a ticket is valid from ten to sixteen calendar days, extending the time required between update tickets.  

An important change to the statute which has not been highlighted in much of the reporting about HB 227, is the change to the definition of “Excavation” under O.R.C. 3781.25(I). For years, companies which performed “grading” sought to exclude their work from the definition of “Excavation” in litigation.  However, the prior definition included any work, “…to move earth…” regardless of the depth of the excavation.

The amendment now carves out exceptions to the definition of Excavation, including the following:

(1). Milling and grinding of road surfaces up to the following depths without penetrating the earth or sub-base:  Interstate routes- 12 inches; All other roadways- 6 inches. 
(2). Utility wood pole inspection - on clear side of pole (greater than 90 degrees from any riser), using hand tools- up to 12 inches;
(3). Tilling - for sowing grass/wildflowers for erosion control or beautification- up to 4 inches;
(4). Temporary signage - up to 4 inches;
(5). Localized pavement repair (areas of pavement requiring deeper removal to correct uncommon issues that cannot be repaired with usual milling) outside municipal corporations- without penetrating earth or sub-base- up to 12 inches;
(6). Locate activity conducted with hand tools under valid notification ticket, but if transmission facility present, must coordinate with owner for exemption
(7). Activity within 12 inches horizontally or vertically from existing, exposed or visible utility appurtenances (physical components that provide service such as pole, meter, valves or electrical boxes, and easements that allow access)

Utilities may see a rise in pavement grading and milling companies refusing to call 811 prior to performing its work. After causing damage, they may argue that the grading did not remove more than six inches of roadway (or twelve inches on an interstate) and did not reach the sub-base or underlying earth. 

Your utility may experience a gap in notification back to its locator to investigate the damage, where there was no original locate ticket.  In these cases, the utility’s crew’s investigation will be extremely important. Even if the locate company returns to investigate the damage, until they are educated by the utility that a greater investigation is required, the locate company may  simply note that there is no 811 ticket without performing further investigation into the cause of the damage.

A utility’s crew, and the locate company’s investigator,  need to be trained to spot these “milling and grading” damage claims.  The utility’s crew and the locate company’s investigator need to investigate fully by measuring the roadway to document the depth of the grading which occurred, with a picture including a ruler as evidence. They will further need to make a determination if the sub-base or underlying earth was impacted, again with a picture to document the findings. The statute does not define “sub-base”, so the crew or locate company investigator will need to be clear about what it considers the “sub-base” and why.  Again, a picture to confirm their definition will help.  

The “Localized pavement repair” exception gives the pavement repair/grading company the ability to dig into the roadway up to 12 inches to make a “localized repair.”  Once again, the utility’s crew, or the locator’s inspector will need to make specific findings, beyond the lack of a locate ticket, as to whether the activities of the pavement company qualified as “Localized pavement repair” and whether they were working deeper than 12 inches or penetrated the “sub-base” or earth below it.  

Other potential problems with the exceptions as written is that how “temporary” the “temporary signage” has to be in order to meet the exception, is not defined.  How can you judge the intent of the sign installation after the fact, once the damage has been caused?  

Last Thoughts

Remember that the changes to the law went into effect on June 9, 2026.  Therefore, any damage caused before that date falls under the old version of the statute. Any call to 811 prior to June 9, 2026, also falls under the old version of the statute.  

Feel free to contact Cleveland Shareholder Amanda Yurechko with specific questions as the new amendments to the Ohio One Call Law begin to affect your utility’s collection of its property damage claims.  

This blog is not a solicitation for business, and it is not intended to constitute legal advice on specific matters, create an attorney-client relationship or be legally binding in any way.
1The prior version of O.R.C. 3781.25(F) defined “Working days” as “…excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays…” without the specific time delineation of the first day.   

Related Publications

Alerts / 10 July 2026

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Constitutional Limits on Tax Foreclosure Recoveries

Last year, Cleveland Shareholder Ben Hoen reported that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Pung v. Isabella County, a Michigan tax foreclosure case that raised important questions concerning the constitutional rights of property owners following a tax foreclosure sale.
Read More
Insights / 30 June 2026

Ohio Court Confirms a Power of Attorney Cannot Use an Elderly Person's Money for Personal Expenses

A power of attorney is not permitted to treat an elderly person's money like a personal bank account. Ohio law recognizes that older adults are particularly vulnerable to abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation.
Read More
Insights / 30 June 2026

Rebutting Attacks on Alternate Service in Michigan - What Creditors Need To Know

Currently making the rounds on the internet are false motions to quash service/motions to dismiss based on alleged lack of service in Michigan cases, which debtors are filing with courts with increased frequency on a reflexive, mechanical basis. Detroit Attorney Jeffrey Bearss shares the following in response.
Read More

Join Our Email List

Get the latest articles and news delivered to your email inbox!
Subscribe

Contact Amanda

Amanda R. Yurechko

Shareholder
Contact

Join Our Email List