ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. State, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
50 So. 3d 755
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- ExxonMobil petitioned the Department of Agriculture for a declaratory statement under section 120.565, seeking clarification of Florida's Price Gouging Law (501.160).
- The Department dismissed the petition; ExxonMobil sought judicial review of that dismissal.
- Florida Price Gouging Law prohibits unconscionable price increases during declared emergencies, defined as a gross disparity between prices 30 days prior and current prices, with exemptions for additional costs or national/international market trends.
- The petition centers on (a) whether the Gulf Coast Regional Platts Index, as a regional pricing indicator, constitutes a national or international market trend for purposes of the law, and (b) whether the law may apply to wholesale gasoline transactions between commercial entities, not just branded retail.
- Florida precedent under 120.565 allows declaratory statements in appropriate circumstances, including when a single petitioner has a unique industry with limited participants.
- The court reversed the Department’s dismissal, remanding with instructions to respond to the two discrete questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Price Gouging Law apply to wholesale gasoline transactions? | ExxonMobil argues the law should cover wholesale sales under its unique facts. | Department contends the answer may depend on broader policy/administrative considerations and may be limited by other authorities. | Department must respond. |
| Does ExxonMobil’s use of the Gulf Coast Regional Platts Index shield it from enforcement as a national/international market trend? | Index could reflect non-national trends; seeks declaratory answer that it does not trigger liability under the statute. | Index relevance to national/international trend is contested and not dispositive to the petition as framed. | Department must respond. |
Key Cases Cited
- Investment Corp. of Palm Beach v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Dept. of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 714 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (declaratory statements may be used for unique, limited industries; cannot be limited to a single petitioner)
- Investment Corp. of Palm Beach v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Dept. of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 747 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1999) (broadens access to declaratory statements; purpose to resolve ambiguities for the public)
- Lennar Homes, Inc. v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation, 888 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (treats broad interpretation of section 120.565 but cautions against broad, policy-shaping declarations)
- Padilla v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (cases recognize circumstances where declaratory statements are inappropriate due to ongoing litigation)