Marco Supply Co., Inc. A Virginia Corp. v. At & T Commc'ns, Inc., 875 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Marco Supply Co., Inc. A Virginia Corp. v. At & T Commc'ns, Inc., 875 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · 3 courts · …a regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate regulatory agency, even if it has quoted or charged a lower rate to its customer. at p. 436 ✓
84 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 27 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bryan v. BellSouth Communications Inc (ca4, 2004-07-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bryan v. BellSouth Communications Inc
4th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate reg- ulatory agency . . . . to do otherwise would be giving a preference to and discriminating in favor of the customer in question.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Qwest Corp. v. AT & T CORP.
D. Colo. · 2005 · confidence medium
Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gipson v. Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.
S.D. Miss. · 2002 · confidence medium
Co., 954 F.2d 485 , 494 (8th Cir.) (filed rate doctrine barred RICO claims for fraud on agency), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 957 , 112 S.Ct. 2306 , 119 L.Ed.2d 228 (1992); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (filed rate doctrine barred claim of price misrepresentation), and this court perceives no basis in Wells for doing otherwise. 12 Plaintiff additionally contends that in letters sent to him advising of the forced placement of coverage, American Security and Fleet misrepresented to him that the basis for the rates for the coverage were higher because…
cited Cited as authority (rule) BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Kerrigan
N.D. Fla. · 1999 · confidence medium
Taffet, 967 F.2d at 1487 ; Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 435-36 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stein v. Sprint Corp.
D. Kan. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Central Office, — U.S. at -, 118 S.Ct. at 1962 (quoting Maxwell, 237 U.S. at 97 , 35 S.Ct. 494 ) (under the filed-rate doctrine, consumers are charged with notice of the filed tariff); Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT & T, 138 F.3d 479, 489 (2d Cir.1998) (customers are “conclusively presumed” to have knowledge of the filed tariff); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989); Paulson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 804 F.2d 506, 507 (8th Cir.1986); Aero Trucking, Inc. v. Regal Tube Co., 594 F.2d 619, 623 (7th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin and Richard Stotts
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639, 653 , 33 S.Ct. 391, 395 , 57 L.Ed. 683 (1913); accord Maxwell, 237 U.S. at 98 , 35 S.Ct. at 495-96 ; Marcus, 138 F.3d at 62-63; Marco Supply Co. v. AT&T, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Suzanne Cahnmann, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sprint Corporation
7th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Co., 954 F.2d 485 , 489-90 (8th Cir.1992); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) At & T Corp., a New York Corporation v. Fleming and Berkley, a Limited Partnership and Frederick J. Fleming, an Individual (2×)
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989). 13 In accordance with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 203 , AT & T filed schedules of its rates and charges with the F.C.C., together with all the rules, regulations, and classifications used by AT & T in the conduct of its long distance telephone business.
examined Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Value Call International, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D. Kan. · 1997 · confidence medium
Ry., 260 U.S. 156, 163 , 43 S.Ct. 47, 49-50 , 67 L.Ed. 183 (1922) (rights defined by tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by contract or tort of carrier), or from asserting estoppel against the carrier, Marco Supply Co., Inc. v. AT&T Comm., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hardy v. Claircom Communications Group, Inc.
Wash. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 954 F.2d 485 , 494 (8th Cir.) (applying the doctrine to bar RICO fraud claims), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 957 (1992); Marco Supply Co. v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir. 1989) (applying the doctrine to bar claims for willful misrepresentation where carrier quoted lower rate); Marcus, 938 F. Supp. at 1170 (applying the doctrine to bar claims for deceptive advertising and misrepresentation based on practice of "rounding-up”); Burlington N. R.R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Happy the Glass Man, Inc.
E.D. Ky. · 1997 · confidence medium
Finally, to the extent Happy argues that it was unaware of the Tariff provisions because MCI never provided it with a copy of the Tariff, such an argument is unavailing because “customers are presumed to know what the applicable tariff is.” Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Intrend Ropes & Twines, Inc. (2×)
C.D. Ill. · 1996 · confidence medium
Id. § 203(c); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marcus v. AT & T CORP.
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
Co., 954 F.2d 485 , 494 (8th Cir.), (filed rate doctrine barred RICO claims for fraud on agency), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 957 , 112 S.Ct. 2306 , 119 L.Ed.2d 228 (1992); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (filed rate doctrine barred claim of price misrepresentation); Transportation Data Interchange, Inc. v. AT & T, 920 F.Supp. 86, 89 (D.Md.1996) (relying on Marco, supra, in holding that filed rate doctrine bars claims for breach of contract and fraud); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graphnet, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 126, 132 (D.N.J.1995) (holding that fi…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Transportation Data Interchange, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.
D. Maryland · 1996 · confidence medium
Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (citing cases).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pay Phone Concepts, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
D. Kan. · 1995 · confidence medium
Since it presumes that customers know what the applicable tariff is, the filed rate doctrine prevents an aggrieved customer from enforcing contract rights that contravene governing tariff provisions, Graphnet, Inc., 881 F.Supp. at 132-33 , or from asserting estoppel against the carrier, Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. IMR Capital Corp.
D. Mass. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. AT & T, 391 F.2d 486, 491-492 (2d Cir.1968); AT & T v. Florida-Texas Freight, Inc., 357 F.Supp 977 (S.D.Fla.1973) aff'd 485 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir. 1973); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. TCI Mail, Inc., 772 F.Supp 64, 66-67 (D.R.I.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graphnet, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1995 · confidence medium
“The general case law is that a regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate regulatory agency, even if it has quoted or charged a lower rate to its customer.” Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) International Telecommunications Exchange Corp. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
N.D. Ga. · 1995 · confidence medium
April 26, 1994); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 435-36 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Best Telephone Co., Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. NOS Communications, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1993 · confidence medium
NOS does not take issue with the filed tariff doctrine, which provides that “a regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate regulatory agency, even if it has quoted or charged a lower rate to its customer.” Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434,436 (4th Cir.1989) (emphasis in original); see also Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 , 35 S.Ct. 494 , 59 L.Ed. 853 (1915).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gelb v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
Marco Supply, 875 F.2d at 436 (customer alleges willful misrepresentation of rates as to himself by AT & T and held not actionable); Missouri Pacific, 669 F.2d at 559 (claim for fraud based on misleading advice not actionable “where the result would be a rate preference”); Consolidated Freightways, 612 F.2d at 466 (alleged misquotation of tariffs to petitioner is not actionable); Aero Trucking, 594 F.2d at 622 n. 1 (alleged fraudulent statements by carrier do not alter “Act’s purpose of enforcing rate uniformity”); Illinois Central, 586 F.2d at 588 (alleged fraudulent inducement that…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. TCI Mail, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.R.I. · 1991 · confidence medium
Under the “filed tariff doctrine,” a tariff filed with the FCC supersedes all other agreements for interstate telephone services. 1 Id. § 203(c); Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Heritage Tractor, Inc. v. Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir. 32 1989).
discussed Cited "see" Tomi White Bryan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bellsouth Communications, Incorporated (2×)
4th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Co., Inc. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) ("[A] regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate regulatory agency....
cited Cited "see" Mincron SBC Corp. v. Worldcom, Inc.
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Kanuco Technology Corp. v. Worldcom Network Services, Inc.
Tex. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989); see also Transportation Data Interchange v. AT & T Corp., 920 F.Supp. 86, 88 (D.Md.1996).
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Dominican Communication Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply, 875 F.2d at 436 (4th Cir.1989) (dismissing aggrieved customer’s tortious misrepresentation claim); AT & T v. New York City Human Resources Admin., 833 F.Supp. 962, 978-79 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (stating that rationale underlying decisions dealing with the ICA applies to tariffs under the Communications Act); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. TCI Mail, Inc., 772 F.Supp. 64, 67-68 (D.R.I.) (finding that doctrine does not preclude claim of willful misconduct where liability for claim is permitted in tariff); see generally MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph …
cited Cited "see" Capps Agency, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
M.D. Fla. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Company, Inc. v. AT & T Communications, 875 F.2d 434, 435-36 (4th Cir.1989); MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. TCI Mail, Inc., 772 F.Supp. 64, 66 (D.R.I.1991).
cited Cited "see" Security Services, Inc. v. Ed Swierkos Enterprises, Inc.
S.D. Ohio · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marco Supply Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 875 F.2d 434 (4th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Worldcom, Inc.
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id. at 276 ; see also Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (holding that willful misconduct does not except claims of misrepresentation from the filed rate doctrine); Int’l.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tenore v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES
Wash. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639, 653 , 33 S.Ct. 391, 395 , 57 L.Ed. 683 (1913) ("Neither the intentional nor accidental misstatement of the applicable published rate will bind the carrier or shipper"); See also Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Comm's., Inc., 875 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1989) (doctrine precludes claim of price misrepresentation); Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc) (allegedly overcharged or defrauded customers suffered no cognizable injury because of filed rate); Southwestern Bell Tel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Services
Wash. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 683 (1913) (“Neither the intentional nor accidental misstatement of the applicable published rate will bind the carrier or shipper”); See also Marco Supply Co. v. AT&T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1989) (doctrine precludes claim of price misrepresentation); Taffet v. Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (allegedly overcharged or defrauded customers suffered no cognizable injury because of filed rate); Southwestern Bell Tel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Katz v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T, 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (willful misconduct clause does not except misrepresentation claims from the operation of the filed rate doctrine); International Tel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lawrence Marcus Marc Kasky, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Corp., Jeffrey A. Moss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Donna Borok Moss v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Inc., 954 F.2d at 491-92 (filed rate doctrine bars RICO claim for fraud on agency; rejecting suggestion that Arkla left open possibility of broad fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine); see also Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (filed rate doctrine barred willful misrepresentation claim); cf. Square D, 476 U.S. at 416-17 , 106 S.Ct. at 1927 ("[t]he rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by ... tort of the carrier"). 60 The Marcus appellants attempt to distinguish their claims from those held to be barred i…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marcus v. AT&T Corp.
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Inc., 954 F.2d at 491-92 (filed rate doctrine bars RICO claim for fraud on agency; rejecting suggestion that Arlela left open possibility of broad fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine); see also Marco Supply Co. v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (filed rate doctrine barred willful misrepresentation claim); cf. Square D, 476 U.S. at 416-17 , 106 S.Ct. at 1927 (“[t]he rights as defined by the tariff cannot be varied or enlarged by ... tort of the carrier”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cooperative Communications, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.
D. Utah · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Marco, 875 F.2d at 436 (holding that accidental or intentional misquotation of rate governed by filed tariff could not alter terms of parties' contract); MCI Tel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARCO SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. a Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AT & T Communications, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
88-2612.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 2, 1989.
875 F.2d 434
1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7665
1989 WL 56703
Claude Marshall Lauck (Gilmer F. Flip-pin, Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby on brief), for plaintiff-appellant., David Gant Shuford (Mays & Valentine on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Russell, Murnaghan, Staker, Southern, Virginia.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In its complaint, the appellant Marco Supply Company (hereinafter “Marco”) had alleged that it had contracted with the appellee AT & T Communications, Inc. (hereinafter “AT & T”) for AT & T to install a computer-telephone network linking Marco’s offices located at different, distant locations. This contract was entered into by Marco based upon AT & T’S quotation to Marco, both orally and in writing, of what the installation costs and monthly service charges for the network would be. However, when Marco received the first billing for the network, it discovered that it was being charged half again as much for the installation charges and approximately three times as much for the monthly service charge than the prices quoted to it by AT & T. When Marco protested those charges to AT & T, Marco was informed that the prices that had been quoted to it were erroneous and that those for which it had been billed were the rates established by the applicable tariff filed with the Federal Communications Commission (hereinafter “FCC”).

Marco’s suit against AT & T alleged that it had breached its contract with Marco by charging rates higher than those quoted to and relied on by Marco in entering into the contract. Claims for both negligent and willful misrepresentation were also asserted. AT & T moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was required by law to charge Marco at the rates actually billed because those were the rates established by tariffs with state and federal regulatory agencies.

In dismissing the complaint, the district court agreed that AT & T was required by 47 U.S.C. § 203(c) to charge all of its customers only the rates established in the tariffs filed with and approved by the FCC and that AT & T could not be estopped by prior representations from charging the[*436] tariff rate, and held that Marco had no cause of action for negligence. Finally, the district court ruled that Marco could not prevail on its willful misrepresentation claim, because it could not have relied on any misrepresentation as to the applicable rate inasmuch as customers of regulated carriers are presumed to know the actual applicable rates to be charged.

On appeal, Marco contests only the dismissal of its willful misrepresentation claim. It argues that the authority relied on by the district court in its ruling that a regulated carrier cannot be held to a representation, even an intentional one, that misstates the applicable rate is not binding because statements to that effect were only dicta. Marco also argues that general legal and equitable principles do not allow a party to mislead another to the other’s detriment and then argue that the other should have known better. Finally, Marco contends that the applicable tariff relied on by AT & T does not limit its liability for willful misconduct. See Stand Buys, Ltd. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 646 F.Supp. 36 (E.D.Mich.1986).

Marco’s problem in this case is that while it may have equity on its side, the law is against it. The general case law is that a regulated carrier must charge the tariff rate established with the appropriate regulatory agency, even if it has quoted or charged a lower rate to its customer. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 35 S.Ct. 494, 59 L.Ed. 853 (1915); Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas Co., 586 F.2d 588, 592 (5th Cir.1978); New Jersey Bell Telephone Co v. Town of West Orange, 188 N.J.Super. 455, 457 A.2d 1196 (Super.Ct.App.Div.1982); Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Bles, 218 Va. 1010, 243 S.E.2d 473 (1978); Massaponax Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 166 Va. 405, 186 S.E. 3 (1936). To do otherwise would be giving a preference to and discriminating in favor of the customer in question. Furthermore, the aggrieved customer cannot assert that the carrier is estopped to charge the actual tariff rate because customers are presumed to know what the applicable tariff is. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Rutledge Oil Co., 669 F.2d 557, 559 (8th Cir.1982); Aero Trucking, Inc. v. Regal Tube Co., 594 F.2d 619, 621 (7th Cir.1979); Golden Triangle, supra. Finally, courts have held that a customer does not have a claim for relief against a carrier even if the latter’s representation as to applicable rates is fraudulent. Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Terry Tuck, Inc., 612 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 2990, 64 L.Ed.2d 856 (1980); F. Burkhart Mfg. Co. v. Fort Worth & D.C. Ry. Co., 149 F.2d 909 (8th Cir.1945); Aero Trucking, supra. Stand Buys, Ltd., supra, does not stand to the contrary.

We hold that these principles apply to contracts entered into between carriers whose rates are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and their customers. Consequently, AT & T was required to charge the rate in the applicable tariff, rather than the rate, contrary to that tariff, that was initially quoted to Marco by AT & T. The district court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.