Bellermann v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Co.
475 Mass. 67
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs are residential and business customers of Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Co. (FG&E) who moved to certify classes under G. L. c. 93A based on FG&E's alleged long‑running regulatory noncompliance with DPU emergency‑preparedness rules and alleged deceptive practices regarding storm readiness.
- The suit traces to FG&E's response to Winter Storm 2008; the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) issued a detailed order finding numerous systematic deficiencies and regulatory noncompliance by FG&E in preparing for and responding to that storm.
- Plaintiffs initially sought class certification premised on inadequate storm preparation and storm‑time communications; the Supreme Judicial Court (Bellermann I) affirmed denial of that certification because alleged injuries were too dissimilar among putative class members.
- Plaintiffs then renewed class certification based on an alternative theory: they had overpaid for electric service during the class period (2005–2009) because rates were set assuming regulatory compliance and FG&E had been noncompliant, so class members suffered economic injury even though no outages occurred to them during the period.
- A different Superior Court judge certified residential and business classes on the overpayment theory; FG&E sought direct appellate review. The SJC vacated certification, holding the overpayment theory did not allege the required distinct injury under G. L. c. 93A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged regulatory noncompliance alone establishes an economic injury under G. L. c. 93A allowing class certification | Plaintiffs: regulatory noncompliance meant customers paid rates premised on compliance and therefore overpaid for emergency preparedness; actual outages are not required to show injury | FG&E: overpayment theory is legally insufficient because plaintiffs received the electric service they purchased and had no distinct, realized loss; only speculative risk existed | Court: Regulatory noncompliance alone is insufficient. Plaintiffs must show a separate, identifiable harm distinct from the violation; because no outages or realized loss occurred, no economic injury was shown and class certification was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellermann v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Light Co., 470 Mass. 43 (2014) (prior appeal affirming denial of class certification on storm‑response and communications theories)
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008) (regulatory noncompliance can support economic injury where product owned during suit is worth less because it fails to provide legally required safety features)
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 442 Mass. 381 (2004) (consumers paid for advertised product benefits that were not delivered; regulatory/labeling noncompliance supported economic injury)
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Co. of Boston, 445 Mass. 790 (2006) (no economic injury where optional protection did not apply because risk never materialized during rental period)
- Roberts v. Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Co. of Boston, 445 Mass. 811 (2006) (no injury under G. L. c. 93A where defective product in rental contract was not purchased or used)
- Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 460 Mass. 500 (2011) (economic injury where plaintiff sought but did not receive a refund due under noncompliant policy)
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (2013) (plaintiff must show a separate, identifiable harm arising from regulatory violation distinct from the unfair practice itself)
- Feeney v. Dell Inc., 454 Mass. 192 (2009) (Massachusetts public policy strongly favors G. L. c. 93A class actions)
- Salvas v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 452 Mass. 337 (2008) (class certification review is for abuse of discretion; legal error in certification is an abuse of discretion)