Regan Strom Defeats Summary Judgment in Peterson Oil Class Action
09/19/2025
On September 19, 2024, the Business Litigation Session (“BLS”) of Suffolk Superior Court denied the Defendants’ Motions for Summary judgment in the class action matter of Marandino, et al. v. Peterson’s Oil Service, Inc. The Court’s ruling means that the Plaintiffs’ and Class’s claims will be presented to a jury, likely sometime in late 2025.
The case involved claims that Plaintiffs and the rest of Peterson Oil Service, Inc.’s (“Peterson Oil”) customers were led to believe they were purchasing ordinary, industry-standard heating oil from Peterson Oil, but received something very different – fuel contaminated with large quantities of biodiesel that caused myriad harms to class members and their heating equipment, including unexpected shut downs, permanent damage of the equipment and overpaying for fuel with lower energy content.
Peterson Oil argued that the Plaintiffs’ and Class’s breach of contract and consumer protection claims should be dismissed in their entirety – without going to a jury – because, among other things: Peterson Oil never agreed to deliver containing fuel with a set percentage of biodiesel; and there was no legally mandated standard for heating oil.
The BLS outright rejected both arguments. With regard to the argument that Peterson Oil never agreed to deliver fuel containing a set percentage of biodiesel, the BLS adopted Regan Strom’s argument that “Plaintiffs may rely on trade or business usage to establish the meaning of the terms [‘heating oil’ and/or ‘#2 heating oil.’] …” The Court concluded, moreover, that Plaintiffs had presented evidence that industry usage supported their interpretation, including expert testimony, Peterson Oil’s representatives’ testimony, statements on Peterson Oil’s invoices and other documents and testimony of industry representatives.
As to the consumer protection claims, the Court found that the claims are “akin to a classic bait and switch – the Peterson Defendants purported to sell No. 2 heating oil but sold heating oil that was not No. 2 heating oil – which is an actionable wrong under G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute.] “The Court rejected Peterson Oil’s arguments that they were not under any legal obligation to deliver No. 2 heating oil, moreover, finding that Peterson was selling fuel that their customer’s equipment were not approved to use.
“We agree with the Court that Plaintiffs have presented considerable evidence of a classic bait and switch scheme, which if proven to the jury, is a clear-cut violation of Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws,” said Attorney Jeffrey Strom, co-lead counsel on the case.
“This decision will allow the class representatives to proceed to trial and have their claims heard by a jury on behalf of themselves and 27,000+ customers they allege were harmed by Peterson Oil’s biodiesel blending,” Attorney Strom continued. “We, along with our dedicated group of Class Representatives, look forward to presenting the substantial evidence we have amassed to the jury.”
Related Links:
“Peterson Oil to Face Class Action Lawsuit for Allegedly Selling Bad Oil Mix,” Worcester Business Journal
“Worcester Fuel Dealer Faces Class-Action Suit Over Home Heating Oil Mixture,” Boston Globe
