## Facts

- Florida Fuels, Inc. sought to enter the South Florida market for supplying heavy marine fuel oil (“bunkers”) to cruise and cargo vessels operating out of regional ports.
- Belcher Oil Co. operated a storage-tank facility on Fisher Island near the Port of Miami with multiple tanks used to receive, store, blend, and deliver bunker fuel on tight vessel schedules.
- Florida Fuels asked Belcher to lease tank space at the Fisher Island facility; Belcher refused.
- Florida Fuels alleged Belcher had monopoly power and that access to the Fisher Island tanks was necessary for Florida Fuels to compete effectively.
- Belcher submitted evidence that Florida Fuels had other options, including constructing storage at other Miami-area locations, using Florida Fuels’ own existing storage capabilities, and obtaining access to facilities offered by other firms.

## Issues

1. Whether Belcher’s refusal to lease storage-tank capacity to Florida Fuels could constitute unlawful exclusion under Sherman Act § 2 under the essential facilities doctrine.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record permitted a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the Fisher Island facility was essential, not practically or reasonably duplicable, and feasibly shareable.

## Decision

- The court granted Belcher’s motion for partial summary judgment on the essential-facilities component of the § 2 claim.
- The court held Florida Fuels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the Fisher Island facility was essential to competition or that Florida Fuels was practically or reasonably unable to duplicate or obtain adequate alternatives.
- Because Florida Fuels did not satisfy key elements of the doctrine, the court declined to impose a duty on Belcher to provide access to its facility.

## Legal Principles

- Essential facilities liability under Sherman Act § 2 is exceptional and requires proof of: (1) monopolist control of the facility, (2) practical or reasonable inability to duplicate it, (3) denial of use to a competitor, and (4) feasibility of providing access.
- A facility is not “essential” merely because it is cheaper, more convenient, or strategically located; the competitor must lack practical or reasonable alternatives.
- At summary judgment, conclusory assertions of “essentiality” or inability to build or lease alternatives do not defeat a properly supported motion; the nonmovant must present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute on each required element.

## Conclusion

The court removed Florida Fuels’ essential-facilities theory from the case because the evidence did not support a finding that Belcher’s Fisher Island tanks were indispensable to competition or beyond practical duplication or substitution, and thus Belcher had no antitrust duty to lease the facility to a competitor.


Florida Fuels, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 717 F. Supp. 1528 (S.D. Fla. 1989)