Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D.N.Y.: Injured truck driver’s insurance monopolization claims time-barred, (Jun 1, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A former truck driver’s boycott and attempted monopolization claims against various insurance companies were dismissed as time-barred under the applicable four-year statute of limitations. The federal district court Binghamton, New York determined that the plaintiff’s injury occurred over four-years prior to filing his complaint and any “continuing violation” argument would be unavailing (Maki v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., May 28, 2015, McAvoy, T.).

Background. Plaintiff Frank Maki, an experienced truck driver, alleges that he obtained an insurance policy with Mang Insurance Agency, Inc. in August 2008. After entering into a truck lease agreement with CRST Malone, certain employees forwarded the lease agreement to Mang’s office, but three pages were missing. Maki alleges that he later provided Mang’s office with the missing three pages. On December 6, 2008, Maki had an accident that damaged his truck beyond repair and he sustained injuries that permanently disabled him. After calling Mang’s office to make a claim for proceeds of his collision policy, Mang’s office informed Maki that the insurance policy was cancelled. He subsequently received a premium refund check and a letter stating that the insurance policy was cancelled because a page was missing from the lease agreement.

Maki eventually brought four claims against Mang Insurance Agency, The Travelers Companies, Inc., Northland Insurance Co., and LoVullo Associates: (1) group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act; (2) attempted monopolization of the insurance trade in violation of the Sherman Act; (3) breach of the insurance contract; and (4) fraud, manifested in misrepresentations made by the insurers that they would provide Maki with coverage. The defendants moved to dismiss under the applicable four-year statute of limitations and that Maki failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Antitrust claims. The court only considered the defendants’ statute of limitations argument. It noted that the complaint was filed on January 3, 2014, and that if Maki’s alleged injury accrued prior to January 3, 2010, his antitrust claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that, at the latest, Maki’s injury occurred in February 2009, when the defendants refused to honor the policy and he decided to sell the damaged truck for salvage. Further, because Maki admitted that he stopped working as a truck driver after the accident, he could not claim that he was the victim of a “continuing violation.” The limitations period could therefore not be tolled and the motion to dismiss was granted.

New York claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. It found that the allegations and procedural posture of the case weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction; judicial economy and convenience favor allowing a state court to weigh the issues; no discovery has occurred; a state-court filing would not lead to duplicative work or wasted effort; and fairness and comity favors dismissal.

The case number is 3:14-cv-8.

Attorneys: Frank Maki, pro se. Judith Treger Shelton (Kenney, Shelton Law Firm) for The Travelers Companies, Inc., Northland Insurance Co., and LoVullo Associates. Christopher B. Weldon (Keidel, Weldon Law Firm) for Mang Insurance Agency.

Companies: The Travelers Companies, Inc.; Northland Insurance Co.; LoVullo Associates; Mang Insurance Agency

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews