filed rate doctrine in Washington

2014Horwitz, 745 N.E.2d at 605 .

2014Horwitz, 745 N.E.2d at 605 .

2014The only case in which our Supreme Court has addressed the filed rate doctrine, Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs.. provides limited 10 Lakev, 176 Wn.2d at 922 . 11 Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Services. 136 Wn.2d 322, 331 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). 12 id, 13 See Weqoland Ltd v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 , 18-21 (2d Cir. 1994); Edge v. State Farm Mut.

2014In Empire Blue Cross, the New York Supreme Court dismissed consumer fraud claims based on the filed rate doctrine, concluding that “ ‘[t]he fact that the remedy sought can be characterized as damages for fraud does not negate the fact that the court would be determining the reasonableness of rates.’ ” Empire Blue Cross, 622 N.Y.S.2d at 848 (emphasis omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 806 F. Supp. 1112, 1119 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 27 F.3d 17 ). 736 F. Supp. 2d 902, 914 (D.N.J. 2010). 139 N.C.

2008That role had always been reserved for § 203 and the filed rate doctrine." Ting, 319 F.3d at 1138 (citing Cent.

2008That role had always been reserved for § 203 and the filed rate doctrine.” Ting, 319 F.3d at 1138 (citing Cent.

2008Ofice, 524 U.S. at 223 , 118 S.Ct. 1956 ). [8] ¶ 29 The FCC no longer enforces section 203's filing requirements.

2008Office, 524 U.S. at 223 ). 8 ¶29 The FCC no longer enforces section 203’s filing requirements.

1998Co., 108 F.3d 981 , 990 (9th Cir.1997).

1998Co., 108 F.3d 981 , 990 (9th Cir. 1997).

2021However, the filed rate doctrine will bar suit only if damages run squarely against the rate, and it would generally not undermine agencies of their ability to enforce their regulations or provide redress where they have express statutory authority to do so. 5 Alpert further relies on Smith v. SBC Communications Inc., 178 N.J. 265 , 839 A.2d 850 (2004); however, we find Smith unpersuasive.

2021However, the filed rate doctrine will bar suit only if damages run squarely against the rate, and it would generally not undermine agencies of their ability to enforce their regulations or provide redress where they have express statutory authority to do so. 5 Alpert further relies on Smith v. SBC Communications Inc., 178 N.J. 265 , 839 A.2d 850 (2004); however, we find Smith unpersuasive.

2014For example, in Spielholz v. Superior Court, plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely advertised a "'seamless calling area.'"29 The California Court of Appeal held that such claims were not a direct attack on rates and that the lawsuit's potential effect on rates would be "merely incidental."30 Similarly, in Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that class action consumer fraud claims based on false advertising practices were "not preempted" where the claims did not "challenge the reasonableness" of the charged rates "but only the fact that its advertisin

2014For example, in Spielholz v. Superior Court, plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely advertised a "'seamless calling area.'"29 The California Court of Appeal held that such claims were not a direct attack on rates and that the lawsuit's potential effect on rates would be "merely incidental."30 Similarly, in Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that class action consumer fraud claims based on false advertising practices were "not preempted" where the claims did not "challenge the reasonableness" of the charged rates "but only the fact that its advertisin

2014For example, in Spielholz v. Superior Court, plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely advertised a "'seamless calling area.'"29 The California Court of Appeal held that such claims were not a direct attack on rates and that the lawsuit's potential effect on rates would be "merely incidental."30 Similarly, in Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that class action consumer fraud claims based on false advertising practices were "not preempted" where the claims did not "challenge the reasonableness" of the charged rates "but only the fact that its advertisin

2014For example, in Spielholz v. Superior Court, plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely advertised a "'seamless calling area.'"29 The California Court of Appeal held that such claims were not a direct attack on rates and that the lawsuit's potential effect on rates would be "merely incidental."30 Similarly, in Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that class action consumer fraud claims based on false advertising practices were "not preempted" where the claims did not "challenge the reasonableness" of the charged rates "but only the fact that its advertisin

2014The only case in which our Supreme Court has addressed the filed rate doctrine, Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs.. provides limited 10 Lakev, 176 Wn.2d at 922 . 11 Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Services. 136 Wn.2d 322, 331 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). 12 id, 13 See Weqoland Ltd v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 , 18-21 (2d Cir. 1994); Edge v. State Farm Mut.

2014Concluding that "any court-imposed award of damages would by definition result in [plaintiffs] paying something other than the filed rate," the Hardy court held that the claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine.19 But 14 136 Wn.2d 322 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). 15 IdL at 332 (citing Kan.

2014Dec. 24 (1986). 32 204 Ariz. 25, 36-37 , 59 P.3d 789 (2002). 33 See also Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross, 589 Pa. 415 , 909 A.2d 1211, 1217-18 (2006) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined that filed rate doctrine did not bar claims that an insurance seller accumulated excessive surplus funds dedicated to purposes inconsistent with nonprofit status). 11 No. 69848-6-1/12 Third, a court does not engage in "rate making" when considering the rates paid by policyholders as a measure of damages for a CPA misrepresentation claim.

2014Dec. 24 (1986). 32 204 Ariz. 25, 36-37 , 59 P.3d 789 (2002). 33 See also Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross, 589 Pa. 415 , 909 A.2d 1211, 1217-18 (2006) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined that filed rate doctrine did not bar claims that an insurance seller accumulated excessive surplus funds dedicated to purposes inconsistent with nonprofit status). 11 No. 69848-6-1/12 Third, a court does not engage in "rate making" when considering the rates paid by policyholders as a measure of damages for a CPA misrepresentation claim.

2014The only case in which our Supreme Court has addressed the filed rate doctrine, Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs.. provides limited 10 Lakev, 176 Wn.2d at 922 . 11 Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Services. 136 Wn.2d 322, 331 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). 12 id, 13 See Weqoland Ltd v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 , 18-21 (2d Cir. 1994); Edge v. State Farm Mut.

2014The only case in which our Supreme Court has addressed the filed rate doctrine, Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs.. provides limited 10 Lakev, 176 Wn.2d at 922 . 11 Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Services. 136 Wn.2d 322, 331 , 962 P.2d 104 (1998). 12 id, 13 See Weqoland Ltd v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 , 18-21 (2d Cir. 1994); Edge v. State Farm Mut.

2008Id. at 450-51, 125 S.Ct. 1788 (citations omitted). [10] See In re Policy & Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Commc'ns Act of 1934, 11 F.C.C.R. 7,141, 7,161, 1996 WL 435466 (1996) (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) ("In addition, the absence of tariffs would eliminate possible invocation by carriers of the filed rate doctrine."); In re Policy & Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Commc'ns Act of 1934, 11 F.C.C.R. 20,730, 20,751, 1996 WL 633345 (1996) (Second Report and