729 F.3d 394
5th Cir.2013Background
- Medco Energi US sued Sea Robin Pipeline in Louisiana state court for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, fraud, and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims arising from Sea Robin's repair timelines after Hurricane Ike.
- Sea Robin, an interstate natural gas transporter, operates under a FERC-approved tariff and provides interruptible service subject to its General Terms and Rate Schedule ITS, limiting liability and availability.
- Ike damaged Sea Robin's facilities in 2008; FERC allowed restoration costs to be recovered via a long-term surcharge, while Medco and others intervened but did not press their protests.
- Medco alleged Sea Robin's notices and assurances misrepresented when the pipeline would be back in service, including a claim it would be ready by March 2009.
- Medco claimed damages for costs to build a gathering line, lost production, and reduced value due to delayed or unavailable pipeline service.
- The district court granted Sea Robin summary judgment, finding the claims preempted by the Natural Gas Act or the filed rate doctrine; Medco appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filed rate doctrine bars Medco's state-law claims | Medco argues misrepresentations were extra-contractual, not challenging a filed rate. | Sea Robin contends damages derive from the interrupted service governed by the tariff and filed rates. | Yes; the claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine. |
| Whether any misrepresentation about repair timing falls outside the tariff scope | Medco asserts misrepresentation about repair timing is outside the tariff’s terms. | Sea Robin maintains representations about service timing relate to the tariff and required rates. | No; misrepresentations concern services and timing addressed by the filed tariff. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 952 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1991) (tariff-based representations and rates govern claims; discrimination concerns bar relief)
- Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1981) (filed rate doctrine foundational principle)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1915) (deviation from filed rate not permitted)
- Hill v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff's claims implicating rights under a tariff)
- Tex. Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc., 413 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2005) (filed rate doctrine bar to rate-related claims)
- Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694 (5th Cir. 1999) (tort claims outside the tariff context may survive; here facts differ)