In Nov. 18, the West Virginia Supreme Court awarded Erie Insurance Company a significant victory, overturning a lower court decision awarding a terminated agent $4.2 million in damages on its claim under the West Virginia antitrust statute (West Virginia Code §47-18-3).

The case, Princeton Insurance Agency v. Erie Insurance, centered upon plaintiff ’s termination as an Erie agent, which the plaintiff contended had occurred for anticompetitive reasons. Specifically, plaintiff was terminated by Erie after refusing to provide Erie with its production reports, which would have disclosed to Erie whether its suspicions that plaintiff had begun diverting potential new business to rival insurers for whom the plaintiff had recently also become an agent were correct. The termination applied to all Erie-affiliated companies.

At trial, the plaintiff argued that Erie’s action, taken on behalf of all of its affiliated entities (all of which Erie controlled, but several of which were not wholly-owned subsidiaries), constituted the multiplicity of actors needed for an actionable conspiracy, and that the termination had resulted in plaintiff ’s loss of $1.4 million in commissions. The jury agreed, awarding plaintiff $1.4 million in damages on the claim, which was trebled under the West Virginia antitrust statute to $4.2 million.

On appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court, Erie argued that under Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), most agreements between a parent company and its subsidiaries do not constitute the multiplicity of actors needed for a Section One Sherman Act claim, particularly where actual control over the subsidiaries is shown to exist. The Court, after noting that the West Virginia legislature “has directed that where [West Virginia] state antitrust provisions track the Sherman Act’s provisions federal decisional law should be followed,” proceeded to apply Copperweld principles to the case. Because the trial court had failed to determine “whether the Erie companies were sufficiently independent of each other to prevent them from serving a unified corporate interest,” the lower court ruling could not stand.

The West Virginia Supreme Court also took issue with the trial court’s handling of the “antitrust injury” element of plaintiff ’s claim. The Court held that “it is fatal to [the agent’s] claim that they failed to introduce any evidence of how competition within the relevant insurance market had been harmed.” Because the agent’s damages would have been suffered by any termination, even “independent of any anticompetitive conduct,” the damages plaintiff suffered “were not antitrust damages.” Accordingly, “because [plaintiff ] failed to prove anticompetitive harm of the ilk governed by the antitrust laws, they have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to recovery under West Virginia Code 47-18-3,” requiring a reversal of the judgment.