Filed Rate Doctrine

149 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• ANR Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  863 F.2d 959· D.C. Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to rationally explain why ANR Pipeline Company's compliance filing, which replaced a minimum bill quantity (MBQ) with projected sales volumes in rate calculations, did not comport with a prior order to eli
• Morton L. Minsky v. Auto Driveaway
  757 F.2d 718· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-18 ·cited 2×
  A filed tariff rate, approved by the ICC, is the legal rate, and a customer charged that rate cannot maintain an antitrust suit against the carrier for conspiracy in setting the rate.
• S. Motor Carriers Rate Conf., Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  667 F.2d 971· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The Commission lacks statutory authority to reject or strike an effective tariff solely for publication errors without formal hearing procedures.
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  589 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the utility's fuel adjustment clause called for current charges based on a formula, not past expenses, and thus there was no 'billing lag' entitling the utility to a phase-in arrangement for unbilled expenses.
• Smith Canning & Freezing Co. v. Lloyd Krause, Inc.
  398 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-19 ·cited 2×
  A contract carrier cannot recover amounts beyond the filed and approved rate, even if the parties colluded to operate at a lower rate, because the filed rate is the only lawful charge.
• Silent Sioux Corp. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  262 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1959-01-14 ·cited 2×
  An interstate carrier cannot be held liable for damages resulting from its agent's misquotation of freight rates, as filed tariffs are the only lawful charge and shippers are conclusively presumed to know them.
• Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Am. Compressed Steel Corp.
  181 F.2d 183· 6th Cir.· 1950-04-21 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot alter filed tariff rates based on equitable principles, even if strict application causes hardship.
• Mellman v. Sprint Commc'ns Co.
  975 F. Supp. 1458· N.D. Fla.· 1996-08-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's breach of contract claims arising from telecommunications services were preempted by the Federal Communications Act, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction and denying the motion to remand.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Pensacola
  936 F. Supp. 880· N.D. Fla.· 1995-06-30 ·cited 1×
  A port is not liable for demurrage charges under a railroad's filed tariff if it is not a party to the transportation contract, even if its actions caused the delay.
• Uniforce Temp. Pers., Inc. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins.
  892 F. Supp. 1503· S.D. Fla.· 1995-04-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' antitrust claims were barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the filed rate doctrine, and that their constitutional claims failed due to the availability of post-deprivation remedies and lack of substantive due process violation.
• Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  839 F. Supp. 1563· M.D. Fla.· 1993-12-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that FMPA's claim for damages was barred by the filed rate doctrine, as it required a court to determine the reasonableness of past rates, a determination exclusively within FERC's jurisdiction.
• Rebel Motor Freight, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & Diamond-Bathurst, Inc.
  971 F.2d 1288· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's finding of an ambiguous tariff publication practice, leading to confusion for shippers, was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, thus precluding the carrier from collecting alleged undercharges.
• Trevathan v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
  2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152757· S.D. Fla.· 2015-11-06
  The court held that the filed-rate doctrine bars claims for excessive premiums and that the Feaz decision bars claims for excessive coverage amounts, while also finding a failure to comply with notice and cure provisions and a lack of TILA disclosure requirements for force-placed
• Gelfound v. Metlife Ins.
  857 F. Supp. 2d 1252· S.D. Fla.· 2014-02-14
  The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied because the plaintiff sufficiently pled a breach of contract claim and the filed rate doctrine did not bar the claim.
• Pfeil v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
  504 F. Supp. 2d 1273· N.D. Fla.· 2007-06-07
  The court held that the filed rate doctrine bars all of the plaintiffs' claims because they seek to invalidate, alter, or add to the terms of the filed tariff.
• Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  81 F. Supp. 2d 1313· M.D. Fla.· 1999-08-18
  The court held that FPL's statute of limitations defense fails because its refusal to provide network transmission service for the IDO project constituted a new and actionable breach. The court also found that FMPA is an intended third-party beneficiary of the settlement agreemen
• BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Kerrigan
  55 F. Supp. 2d 1314· N.D. Fla.· 1999-05-28
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether BellSouth provided proper notice before disconnecting service, thus denying BellSouth's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. The court also found that the interpretation of 'nonrecurring char
• Global Access Ltd. v. AT&T Corp.
  978 F. Supp. 1068· S.D. Fla.· 1997-08-18
  A common carrier cannot unilaterally modify the terms of a contract tariff filed with the FCC if the modification is contrary to the original agreement and lacks customer consent, as such amendments are a nullity under the Sierra-Mobile doctrine.
• Whitaker v. Power Brake Supply
  188 B.R. 287· M.D. Fla.· 1994-07-28
  The Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 (NRA) applies to undercharge claims of a bankrupt motor carrier estate, and the bankruptcy code's anti-forfeiture provisions do not prevent its application.
• Whitaker v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n (In Re Olympia Holding Corp.)
  161 B.R. 524· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-10
  The court held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to enjoin the ICC's show cause order as it exceeded statutory authority, it abused its discretion by enjoining all future ICC proceedings.
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  998 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-27
  The court affirmed the Commission's order finding Transco violated the Natural Gas Act and disallowing Transco's $75 million passthrough, finding the Commission's actions were supported by substantial evidence and reasoned consideration.
• In re Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Rock Wool Mfg. Co.
  989 F.2d 1424· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-07
  The court held that the bankruptcy court improperly denied defendants the opportunity to assert rate unreasonableness as a counterclaim and that summary judgment was improper as to shipments made under a potentially valid filed discount tariff.
• F.P. Corp. v. Twin Modal, Inc.
  989 F.2d 285· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-26
  The court held that F.P. Corporation is barred from collecting alleged undercharges because its tariff was never effectively filed with the ICC.
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  988 F.2d 154· D.C. Cir.· 1993-03-19
  The court held that FERC's order allowing Transwestern to abandon its GIC exclusivity condition and recover take-or-pay costs under the Order No. 500 mechanism was within the agency's discretion and did not violate the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemakin
• Thrasher Trucking Co. v. Empire Tubulars, Inc.
  983 F.2d 46· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-10
  A carrier that accepts and is legally bound to transport property is not acting as a broker, even if it arranges for some services from other carriers, and must charge its filed rate if it was acting as a common carrier and no valid written contract for contract carriage exists.
• Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  975 F.2d 525· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17
  The court held that Minnesota Statute § 65B.61, Subd. 3, does not create a private cause of action for an insured to sue their health insurer for failure to provide a premium reduction when coordinating benefits, especially when the insurer's rates have been approved by the Commi
• Coliseum Cartage Co. v. Rubbermaid Statesville
  975 F.2d 1022· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-16
  The dissent argues that the reconveyance of accounts receivable does not allow the debtor-in-possession to use § 108(a) to extend the time period for recovering freight undercharges, as the claims were extinguished by the statute of limitations.
• Colo. Interstate GAS Co. v. Natural GAS Pipeline Co. OF Am. & NGPL-Trailblazer, Inc.
  962 F.2d 1528· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06
  The court held that the district court exceeded its mandate on remand by attempting to alter the substance of an already affirmed tort judgment, and that a change in state law after appeal does not justify reopening the judgment.
• A/S Ivarans Rederi v. United States & Fed. Mar. Comm'n
  938 F.2d 1365· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-16
  The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has the authority to resolve disputes regarding filed shipping agreements without first requiring parties to go through arbitration, and its interpretation of ambiguous contractual language is entitled to deference.
• Lovett v. Honeywell, Inc.
  930 F.2d 625· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-15
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. The Council OF the City OF NEW Orleans
  911 F.2d 993· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29
  The court held that the Council's retail rate order was not facially preempted by federal law and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying the remaining claims.
• Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  904 F.2d 64· D.C. Cir.· 1990-05-31
  The court denied petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc.
• Ky. W. Va. GAS Co. & Equitable Gas Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  862 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-28
  A state regulatory scheme that temporarily delays the pass-through of FERC-approved wholesale costs, including minimum bill obligations, does not violate the supremacy clause or the filed rate doctrine, provided the utility is ultimately able to recover those costs. The denial of
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  711 F.2d 219· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-14
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not err in dismissing challenges to RRD's self-qualification and rate filing, deferring to ongoing state court proceedings.
• Me. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  622 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1980-06-06
  The court held that the Commission's disallowance of the fuel adjustment surcharge was a valid exercise of its authority, and MPSC's petition for review was denied.