Background
Bryan Buck filed a class action petition in March 2025 against Union Electric Company (d/b/a Ameren Missouri) and its parent Ameren Corporation on behalf of current and former Ameren customers. Buck alleged that Ameren was unlawfully overcharging customers by $0.14 per month on their monthly “Customer Charge” — contending the Missouri Public Service Commission (“PSC”) had approved a rate of $9.00 but Ameren was collecting $9.14. He asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The court noted, however, that the rate sheet Buck himself submitted indicated the $0.14 differential corresponded to a separately approved “Low-Income Pilot Program Charge,” not an unauthorized overcharge to the base customer rate.
Ameren moved to dismiss, arguing that Buck’s claims fell within the primary jurisdiction of the PSC and that Buck had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granted the motion on primary jurisdiction grounds alone and dismissed the petition without prejudice in July 2025, later denominating the order a final judgment in November 2025. Buck appealed.
Before reaching the merits, the Court of Appeals addressed its own jurisdiction, since dismissals without prejudice are generally not final and appealable. The court found the jurisdictional exception applicable: Buck stood on his original pleadings without seeking to replead, and the nature of the dismissal — based on primary jurisdiction — was not curable by simply refiling. The appeal was therefore properly before the court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Buck’s claims presented a question squarely within the PSC’s primary jurisdiction: determining the lawful and applicable rate for the electric service Ameren provides to its customers. Under Missouri statute, the PSC has exclusive authority to resolve, in the first instance, whether a regulated utility has charged a rate in excess of its filed tariff. Because Buck’s entire theory of liability depended on the premise that Ameren’s rate was unlawful, that threshold question had to be resolved by the PSC before any court could act.
The court rejected Buck’s argument that the PSC’s inability to adjudicate his contract, MMPA, and tort claims — or to award monetary relief — meant those claims could bypass the agency. While it is true the PSC lacks authority to enter money judgments or construe the MMPA, the court explained that the PSC nonetheless has statutory authority to first determine whether a violation occurred. Only after the PSC resolves that foundational rate question may a court proceed to grant any available remedy. The court characterized Buck’s contrary argument as an attempt to use artful pleading to circumvent the PSC’s statutory role.
Because the dismissal was properly affirmed on primary jurisdiction grounds, the court declined to address Buck’s separate arguments — that exhaustion of administrative remedies would have been futile and was inapplicable to his claims — finding those points moot.
Key Takeaways
- Where a plaintiff’s utility overcharge claims rest on the premise that a regulated rate is unlawful, the Missouri PSC has exclusive primary jurisdiction to determine the lawful rate before any court may adjudicate the claim — regardless of how the causes of action are labeled.
- The PSC’s lack of authority to award monetary relief or adjudicate contract, MMPA, or tort claims does not allow plaintiffs to bypass the agency’s statutory authority to make the threshold rate determination.
- A dismissal without prejudice based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine can constitute a final, appealable judgment where the plaintiff stands on the original pleadings and the defect cannot be cured by refiling.
- Appellate courts in Missouri may exercise discretion to reach the merits of a poorly briefed appeal when the gist of the arguments is ascertainable, despite noncompliance with Rule 84.04.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of the PSC’s gatekeeping role in Missouri utility regulation. Class action plaintiffs seeking to challenge utility billing practices — even under consumer-protection or common-law theories — cannot avoid the administrative process simply by styling their claims as contract or tort actions. Courts will look past the pleading labels to the underlying question: if the claim turns on whether the utility’s rate was lawful, the PSC goes first.
For utility customers and their counsel, the practical implication is that the PSC complaint process is not merely an optional preliminary step but a mandatory one. Any litigation strategy premised on an alleged rate overcharge must begin at the agency level, with courts available only to supply remedies the PSC itself cannot grant — after the agency has ruled on the rate question.