The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above

. * Th e Ho no ra

ble JohnR. G ibs on

of the Un ite d St a te s Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the Ei g hth ** Circuit, sitt ing by

desig nation. 06-5247-c v Rice B uick-Pontiac v Ge nera l Motors Corp. 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 Aug ust Term 2007 5 6 7 (Argued: May 8, 2008 Dec ided: Dec ember 29, 2008) 8 9 Docke t No. 06-5247-c v 10 11

_____________________________________ 12 13 TOM RI CE BUI CK-PONTI AC, GMC TRUCK, I NC., GARSTEN MOTORS, I NC., doing 14 business as Apple Chevr olet, BRI GHT B AY GMC TRUCKS, I NC., CARS UNL I MI TED OF 15 SUFF OL K L L C, doing business as N eseng er 112 Chevr olet, GARDEN B UI CK, I NC., 16 KAYSON CHEVROL ET, I NC., KURL AND CADI L L AC OL DSMOBI L E-GMC, I NC., 17 MANF REDICADI L L AC OL DSMOBI L E, I NC., SMI THTOWN B UI CK, I NC., VAN B UREN 18 BUI CK

P ONT I AC , I

NC ., KI NNE Y M OTO RS , I

NC ., do in g bus in ess as A pp le C hev rol et, M&S 19 CH EV RO L ET , I NC ., M& S OF PAWL I

NG , I NC ., WOO DB UR

Y A UT O PA RK , I

NC ., GE I SS 20 AUTO, I

NC., DURFEE CHEV ROL ET-OL DSMOBI L E-GEO , I NC., and DOB L ER 21 CHEVROL ET, I NC., 22 Plain tif fs , 23 24 FUL TON CHEVROL ET-CADI L L AC CO., I NC., 25 Plaintif f-Appellant , 26 27 -v.- 28 29 GENERAL MOTORS CORP ORATI ON, 30 Defendant- Appellee

. * 31

_____________________________________ 32 33 Be fore : HAL L , L I VI NGSTON, GI BSON, Circuit Judges

. ** 34 35 Fr anchise d automobile deale rships sued manufa cture r-f ranc hisor, claim ing insuff icient2 1 re imb ur se me nt u

nd e r f ra nc his e a g re e me nts and

Ne w Y or k V e hic le and

Tr a ff ic L aw § 46 5 f

or re pa ir 2 parts provided to car owner s in connec tion with war ranty repa ir servic es. The U nited States District 3 Court for the Southern District of New York (B uchwa ld, J.) g rante d summary judgme nt dismi ssing 4 the claims of the te st plaintiff. This appea l followed. 5 Affir

med. 6 I TA MA R YE GE R, ESQ

. (L e on ard A. B e llavia , B arr y M. 7 Weiss, Bellavia G entile & Associates, Mineola , New Y ork, 8 on the brief ), for Plainti

ff-Appellant

. 9 1 0 J A M E S C

. M c G RA T H ( D an i e l L

. G o l d b e r g , B r an d o nL. 11 Bi g elow, Samuel R. Rowley , on the brief ) , B in g h am 1 2 M c Cutc h e nL L P, B o s to n , M a s s a c h u s e tts, for De fe nd an t13 Appellee

. 14 15 J OHN J. S UL L I VAN ( Carl J . Chiappa, on the brief ), Hog an 16 & H artson, L L P, New Yor k, New Y ork, for

Am icus Curiae 17 TheAl lia nc e of Auto mo bil e Ma nu fac tur e rs , in support of 18 Defendant- Appellee

. 19 20 L I VI

NGSTON, Circuit Judge : 21 New Y ork Ve hicl e an d Traf fic L aw § 465 r equire s automobile manufac turers to honor 22 wa

rr anty a g re e me nts wi th c us tom e rs and to c omp e ns a te fran chi sed d e a le rs fo r l a bo r a nd pa rt s 23 a sso c iate d w ithwa rr anty repa ir se rv ic e s at a rate that “ sh a ll n ot b e le ss t ha n th e pr ic e and

rate 24 char g ed by

the fra nchised motor vehic le dea lers in the community or marke ting a rea for like se rvice s 2 5 to no n -w arra n t y

an d / o r n o n -s erv i ce co n t ra ct cu s t o m er s , p ro v i d eds u ch p ri ce an d ra t e a re re as o nable.” 26 N.Y. Ve h. & T raf . L aw § 465. The principal issue ra ised by this appeal is whethe r a f ranc h ised 27 de a le rs hip that ov e r m any y e ars c on sis te ntl y

su bmi tte d c la ims and

a c c e pte d r e imb ur se me nt a t a 28 manufa cture r’s standa rd rate, without ever

seekingadditional compensation, may there afte r hold the3 1 manu fa c tur e r l ia

ble un de r S e c tio n 4 65 fo r addi tio na l c omp e ns a tio n o n p a st c la ims , o r whe the r i ts 2 initial requests for a nd acquie scenc e in re imbursement at the standa rd rate pre clude r elief. 3 Th e pla int if fs in t his div e rs ity

a c tio n a re Ne w Y or

k c ar d e a le rs hip s w ho su e d d e fe nd ant4 a pp e lle e Ge ne ra l Mo tor s Co rp or a tio n ( “ GM ” ) u nd e r S e c tio n 4 65 and

the ir fr anc hi s e a gr e e m e nt s w ith 5 the company , claiming that GM’s standard r eimbursement r ate f or wa rra nty repa ir parts is too low 6 under the statute. The pa rties proc eede d to d i s co very solely on the claims of plaintiff- appellant 7 Fulton Chevrolet- Cadillac Co., I nc. (“ Fulton”) , and GM succ essfully moved for summar

y judgme nt 8 dismiss ing F ulton’s claims. This appea l followed. 9 10 Back ground 11 GM is a Delaw are corpor ation that manufa cture s and distributes a utomobiles in the United 12 State s thro ug h a ne tw or k of a uth or ize d de a le rs op e ra

tin g un de r t

he tr a de name s B uic k, Che vr ole t, 13 Pontiac, GMC Truck, Hummer , and Cadillac. Since 1981, Fulton has be en an author ized Cadill ac 14 and

Che vr ole t de a le r i n M idd le tow n, Ne w Y or k, purs ua nt t o a se ri e s o f f

ra nc his e a g re e me nts wi th 15 GM

. 16 L ike most automotive manufa cture rs, GM war rants ce rtain par

ts, sy stems, and ac cessor ies 17 in c onne c tio n w iththe re ta il s a le of its c ars and re imb ur se s fr anc his e d d e a le rs fo r p e rf or min g re pa ir 18 work unde r these w arr anties. I n order to be reimbursed for parts and la bor provided in c onnection 19 with a war

ranty repa ir, deale rs must submit a claim to GM using a computerized sy stem called theGM’s standar d fra nchise a g ree ment—the Dea ler Sales a nd Service 1 Ag re e me nt—

pr ov ide s th a t r e imb ur se me nt f or wa rr anty re pa ir wo rk “ wi ll b e ma de a c c or din g to policies in the Service Policies and Procedur es Manua l.” The ma nual desc ribes the g ener al require ments for submitting cla ims via an elec tronic re pair orde r sy stem, and direc ts dealer s to a se pa rate WI NS C la im Pr oc e ssi ngManu a l f or mor e sp e c if

ic ins tr uc tio ns . 4 1 War

ra nty I nf or matio n Net wor k Sy ste m ( “ WI NS” ). To us e thi s p ro g ra m, whic h a llo ws GM to 1 2 re imb ur se de a le rs a c ro ss the c ountr y ba se d o n a

un if or m me tho do log y , a

de a le r e le c tr on ic a lly

inp uts 3 int o a

c omp ute r c e rt a in i nf

or matio n a bo ut t he wo rk pe rf or me d in c onne c tio n w itha

wa rr anty re pa ir 4 job. The deal er i s n o t require d to submit underlying r epair order s, but must i nput the repa ir order 5 number a

nd date, the ve hicle identification number of the car under r epair , the vehicle ’s mileag e, the 6 applicable “labor operation” number, the primary failed part num ber, and the par ts reimbursement 7 amount. The “ L ine Tot al,” which ref lects t he tot al amount of reimbursement t he dealer is requesting 8 fo r t

he wa rr anty re pa ir , is the n c a lc ulate d a uto matic a lly

by the de a le r’ s c omp ute r p ur su ant t o a GM

9 specifie d formula, a nd the dea ler is g iven the opportunity to reviewthe L ine Total bef ore submitting 10 the c la im. 11 WI

NS ty pically revie ws, approve s, and pay s warr anty claims auto m at i ca lly

without any 12 individual review by a GM employ ee. The sy stem will not approve a c laim automatically , howeve r, 13 if it d oe s n ot f

a ll w ith in c e rt a in p ara

me te rs , f or e xamp le , if it se e ks re imb ur se me nt f or re pa ir pa rt s 14 in an amount that ex cee ds a ce rtain ce iling. That ceiling is determined pur suant to a GM-spe cified 15 formula, whic h involves multi ply ing the deale r list prices for the par ts being used in t h e repair by 16 a standa

rd par ts markup for the dealer. The standard parts m arkup used by WI NS for most deale rs 17 in t

he Un ite d St a te s c ur

re ntl y is f or ty pe rc e nt. He nc e , fo r mos t de a le rs , a re imb ur se me nt c la im w ill 18 not be appr oved automatica lly by WI NS if it se eks more tha

n 140 perc ent of the de aler list prices for5 1 the par

ts used in the repa ir. 2 Although most claims submitt ed throug h WI NS a re pr ocesse d in this way , there are sever al 3 mecha

nisms for by

passing the automated pr ocedur e and se eking reimburse ment at a hig her r ate than 4 that a llo we d b y

the or din ary

W I NS for mul a . F or e xamp le , if

a de a le r w ants a

GM e mpl oy e e to 5 re vie w a

n indi vid ua l re imb ur se me nt cl a im, it ca n “H -r ou te ” the c la im via the WI NS p ro g ra

m to its 6 GM servic e re prese ntative and include comments explaining why individualiz ed review is desired 7 and see king permission to submit a cla im for re imbursement at a hig her r ate. In addition, dealer s may 8 submit “P” code c laims when a w arr anty repa ir requir es more part s than the limit provided for by 9 the a sso c iate d la

bo r o pe ratio n. WI

NS a llo ws a

de a le r a lso to s ub mit

a “ c a se a dd

c re dit ” in 10 circ umstances whe re it see ks additional reimburseme nt on a pre viously submitt ed cla im. 11 Dea lers may submit wa rra nty reimburse ment claims via WI NS at a ny time. T h e p ro gram 12 proce sses standar d claims twice pe r we ek, and pr ovides dea lers with “c laims memos” on the day 13 following such proce ssing. These memos repor t the dispositi on of any war ranty claims s u b m i t ted 14 during the last cy cle. Appr ox imately n i n et y perc ent of wa

rra nty claims are approve d upon initial 15 submissi on, and ordina rily are paid within ten day s. I f a deale r is unha ppy with the dispositi on of a 16 c la im, ho we ve r, it c an r e su bmi t th e c la im u sin g the H- ro ute pr oc e dure and in clu de c omm e nts 17 explaining the dea ler’s dissatisfa ction. The de aler also may

appea l dir ec tly

to its service 18 repr esentative, or invoke c erta in dispute r esolution procedur es desc ribed in its franc hise ag ree ment 19 with GM. 20 Al l a

uth or ize d G M d e a le rs thr ou g ho ut t he Un ite d St a te s u se WI NS to s ub mit

wa rr anty 21 reimburse ment claims. GM proc esses a nd pay s approximately

48 mill io n claims throug h WI NS eac hTh e re is e vid e nc e that K arp B uic k o f R oc kv ill e Ce ntr e se nt a le tte r t o th e No rt

he a st 2 Marke t Area

Manag er f

or GM on Jul y

19, 1999, complaining g ener ally that GM had pa id too little fo r w arr anty

pa rt s und e r N e w Y or

k la w, and de mand inginc re me nta l pa y me nt o n p re vio us ly submitt ed cla ims as well as a hig her r eimbursement r ate g oing f orwa rd. GM re sponded on Se pte mbe r 8 , 1 99 9 th a t any de a le r w a s “ fr e e to r e qu e st a n in div idu a lize d a sse ssm e nt o f i ts ‘ re ta il’ mark up a t any tim e .” GM su g g e ste d th a t if Ka rp B uic k w ish e d to purs ue thi s c ours e , it sh ou ld su bmi t a se ri e s o f r e c e nt r e pa ir

or de rs a s w e ll a s in vo ic e s sh ow ingits re ta il p ri c e s f or re pa ir pa rt s, and that G M th e n w ou ld d e te rm ine if the de a le r w a s e nti tle d to c omp e ns a tio n at a hig he r r a te g oing f orwa rd. GM dec lined, howeve r, to g ive incre mental re imbursement on past cla ims that no longe r we re timely

under the fra

nchise a g ree ment. There is no evidence that Kar p Buic k used the pr oc e dure de sc ri be d in

GM ’s le tte r t o atte mpt

to e sta bli sha hig he r r a te g oin g fo rw ard , o r t hat it su bmi tte d v ia

WI NS a tim e ly re qu e st f or a dd iti on a l r e imb ur se me nt o n p re vio us ly pa id c la ims

. I n addition, on Aug ust 24 and September 11, 2001 r espec tively , Manfr edi Auto Group of Staten I sland and B rig ht Ba y GMC Truck of

Ba y Shore sent letter s to GM demanding that the 6 1 y ear . During 2003, GM approve d about 1.9 million claims from New York dealer s, which ac counted 2 for a

pproxi mately

$183 milli on in reimburseme nts. 3 Since 1996, Fulton re g ularly has submitted warr anty

reimburse m en t claims to GM. I n the 4 fi ve -y ear

pe ri od fr om 1 99 9 to 20 04 , it

su bmi tte d a pp ro xima te ly

22 ,0 00 c la ims , w hic h r e su lte d in 5 c omp e ns a tio n f

ro m G M in

e xc e s s o f $ 3. 8 mi lli on . F ult on ’s De a le r S a le s and Se rv ic e Ag re e me nt w ith 6 GM provides that “ Dea ler . . . a g ree s to tim ely submit true and acc urate applications or claims for 7 pay

ments.” Ac cordingto the deposition testimony of Fulton’s owner , J onathan W orts, eac h of the 8 claims submitted by Fulton since 1996 w as true a nd acc urate

. 9 Fulton conc edes that while it occasiona lly submitt ed H- route re quests for unusua l or 10 additional labor c osts, it never soug ht additional pay ment for pa

rts or otherw ise reque sted that GM 11 reimburse it for war ranty parts at a

higher markup than the forty -per cent r ate use d by WI NS for 12 automatic cla im processing . I ndeed, the parties know of no New Y ork GM dealer that has submitted 13 an in div idu a l w arr anty c la im s e e kin g in e xce ss o f G M’ s st and ard ra te fo r p art s r e imbur se me nt. 2company

alter the WI

NS prog ram to allow de aler s to input m ore infor mation into the computer and to re quest a hig her r eimbursement r ate f or par ts than that allowed by

the standar d formula. Th e re c or d d oe s n ot c on ta in a ny re sp on se s f

ro m G M, or

e vid e nc e that th e se de a le rs a tte mpt e d to us e the H- ro ute , P c od e , o r “ c a se a dd c re dit ” pr oc e dure s f

or re qu e sti nga dd iti on a l r e imb ur se me nt. F u l t o nn o w a s s e rt s t h a tt h e s t an d ar d f o rt y- p e r c e n tp art s m ar

k u p i nf a c ti s a b o u tt h i rt y- 3 five pe rce ntag e points below the g oing non- war ranty rate in Fulton’s community

. 7 1 Fulton insists that such a reque st would be futile. The recor d shows, howeve r, that GM has r ece ived 2 s u ch cl ai m s fr o m d ea l er s i no t h er s t at es , s u ch as I l l i n o i s , M ai n e, an d Ne w J e r s ey , ei t h er

t h ro u gh 3 WI

NS or by letter, a nd ty pically has honore d them afte r ver ifying what the appr opriate r ate of 4 reimburse ment should be. I ndeed, Worts owns a Chevr olet deale rship in New Jersey that reque sted 5 a hig he r rat e in a c c or da

nc e wi th N e w Je rs e y

law. Sin c e 19 99 , th is d e a le rs hip ha s b e e n a ble to u se 6 a spec ial WI

NS code to re ceive reimburse ment at this highe r rate. 7 On

July 16 , 2 00 1, te n p re se nt a

nd fo rm e r G M d e a le rs in Ne w Yo rk fi le d a c omp la int

a g a ins t 8 GM. On De cembe r 18, 2002, they filed an a

mended c omplaint, add i n g Fulton and se ven other 9 plaintiffs, one of w hich subsequently dismiss ed its cl ai m s voluntarily . The g ist of the amende d 10 c omp la int

is that th e sta

nd ard fo rt y -p e rc ent p art s ma

rk up us e d b y

WI NS i s a pp ro xima te ly

thi rt y 11 pe rc e nta g e po int s be low the pa rt s mark up us e d by de a le rs in pla int if fs ’ c omm un ity fo r n on -w arr anty 12 repa irs. The c omplaint alleg es also that bec ause WI NS allows a dea ler to submit only l imited 3 13 information about a w arr anty repa ir, it is “desig ned to frustrate any attempt to add additional 14 inf

or mati on or add

mor e pa rt ic ula r i nf or matio n, ” su c h th a t “ if

a de a le r atte mpt s to inp ut a 1 5 re imb ur s e m e n t r a t e o t h e r t h an t h e r a t e t h a t G M ’ s c o mp u t e r s e t s a s a d e f a u l t , t h a t d e a l e r ’ s c la im 1 6 c a nn ot b e p r o c e s s e d

. ” A c c o r d i n g l y , p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e , G M ’ s r e qu i r e m e n t t h a t d e a l e r s u s e W I NS t o 17 su

bmi t r e imb ur se me nt c la ims ha s le d to sy ste ma tic un de rc ompen sat io n for wa rr anty re pa ir pa rt sFulton has a cknowledg ed that the statute of limit ations on its claims is t hree y ear s, see 4 N.Y. C.P.L .R. § 214(2) (pr oviding thre e-y ear limit ations period for

“an a ction to rec over upon a lia bil ity

. . . im po se d b y statut e ” ); Tom Ri c e Bu ic k -Pon tia c GM

C Tru c k , I nc . v . G e n. Mo tor

s Corp. , No. 01 Civ. 6410 (NRB) , 2006 WL 2322626, at *1 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug . 10, 2006), and thus seeks additional re imbursement only for wa rra nty repa ir jobs perfor

med within the three y ear period prior

to the time this action was commenc ed. 8 1 since 1992, whe n New Y ork Ve hicle and T raf fic L aw § 465 wa s amende d to r equire reimburse ment 2 a t th e rate pr e va ili ngin t he de a le r’ s c omm

un ity fo r n on -w arr anty

re pa ir pa rt s. 4 3 The de aler s asserte d claims under Sec tion 465 as well as a pr ovision of GM’s standar d 4 fra nch i s e agr eement requiringthe company to comply

with all applicable la

ws. The de aler s seek, 5 inte r a lia , inc re me nta l pay me nt on pr e vio us ly su

bmi tte d cla ims ba se d o n w hat th e y a lle g e dly wo uld 6 have be en paid ha d GM used a pr oper markup for parts, as well as an inj unction barr ing G M from 7 using its standar d, nationwide for mula to determine r eimbursement amounts for wa rr anty repa irs 8 pe rf

or me d b y Ne w Y or k d e a le rs . 9 Fulton was c hosen as the te st plaintiff and the parties proce eded to discove ry only on Fulton’s 10 claims, which re veale d the above undisputed fac ts. G M moved for summary judgme nt, denying a

ny 11 viol ati on of

Se c tio n 4 65 , b ut a

rguin g a lso that F ult on

is p re c lud e d f

ro m su ingun de r t

he statut e 12 be c a

us e it h a s r e qu e ste d and a c c e pte d pa y me nt ba se d on the sta

nd ard fo rt y -p e rc e nt pa

rt s ma rk up rate 13 wi tho ut c omp la int sin c e 19 96 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d the mot ion and

dis mis se d F ult on ’s c la ims

. 14 Tom Rice Buick

-Pontiac GM

C Truck, Inc. v. Gen. M

otors Corp. , N o . 0 1 Ci v . 6 4 1 0 ( N RB ) , 2 0 0 6 WL 15 2322626 (S.D.N.Y. Aug . 10, 2006). F ulton now appea ls. 169 1 Discussion 2 W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s g r an t o f s u m m a r y jud g me nt de novo , viewing the fa cts in the 3 light most favor able to the nonmoving par ty and re solving a ll factua l ambiguities in its favor. Singh 4 v . City

of N e w York, 524 F.3d 361, 366 (2d C ir. 2008). Summary judgme nt is appropriate only if the 5 movant shows that there is no g enuine issue as t o any materia l fac t and that it is entitl ed to judg ment 6 as a matter of law . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c)

. 7 Th is appeal hi nges p ri mar il y on a si ngle q ues ti on of l aw: whe th er Ful to n’s consis te nt r e qu e sts 8 for and acc eptanc e of pay ment at GM’s standard wa rra nty reimburse ment rate , without asking f or 9 mor e or

no tif y ingGM of its be lie f that a hig he r r a te mig ht b e wa

rr ante d und e r V e hic le and Tr a ff ic 10 L aw § 465, pr eclude s rec overy of additional pay

ment under the statute for pa st claims. Neither the 11 Ne w Y or

k Co ur t of Ap pe a ls n or

any int e rm e diate Ne w Y or

k a pp e llat e c ourt

ha s a dd re sse d th is 12 quest i o n. “In the abse nce of authoritative lawfrom the state ’s hig hest court, we must either (1) 13 pr e dic t ho w the Ne w Y or k Co ur t of App e a ls wo uld re so lve the state law q ue sti on , o r, if

state law i s 14 so uncer

tain that we c an make no rea so n ab l e pre diction, (2) ce rtify the question to the NewYork 15 Court of Appe als for a definitive re solution.” DiBella v. Hopk ins , 403 F.3d 102, 111 ( 2d Cir. 2005). 16 I n this case, we find the for m er o p t ion appropriate and c onclude that F ulton’s failure to de mand 17 additional compensation for any p as t claims pursuant to Section 465 pre cludes the r elief it now 18 seeks. 19 Our c ardina l f unction in inter

preting a New York statute is to asce rtain and g ive ef fec t to the 20 intent of the leg islature. Abrams v. Ford Motor Co. , 74 N.Y.2d 495, 500, 548 N.E.2d 906, 908 21 (1 98 9) ; see N. Y. Stat. L aw § 92. “A s the c le are st ind ic a tor of le g isl a tiv e int e nt i s th e statut or y te xt,We note that N.Y. Ve h. & T raf . L aw § 465 wa s rec ently

amende d, eff

ective January

1, 5 2009. See Ac t of

Au g . 5 , 2 00 8, c h. 49 0, se c . 3 , N .Y . V e h. & Tr a f. L aw § 46 5, 20 08 N. Y. Se ss. L aws 1329, 1338-40 ( McKinney ). As these amendments do not bec ome ef fec tive until J anuar

y 1, 2009, howeve r, we need not c onsider them her e. 10 1 the starting point in any case of interpre tation must alway s be the languag e itself, g iving e ffe ct to the 2 plain meaningthere of.” Majew ski v. Br oa da lbi n-Pe rth Ce nt. Sc h. Di st. , 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583, 696 3 N. E. 2d

97 8, 98 0 ( 19 98 ); see N.Y. S tat. L aw § 94. We there fore beg in, as we must, with t he text of 4 Se c tio n 4 65 , w hic h r e a ds in r e le va nt p art a s f oll ow s: 5 1. Every fra nchisor shall prope rly

fulfill any war ran ty ag ree ment 6 and /or fr anc his or ’s se rvice con tr a c t and sh a ll c omp e ns a te 7 e a c h o f i ts f ra nc his e d mo tor ve hic le de a le rs fo r w arr anty pa rt s 8 and la bor in am ounts wh ic h r e fl e c t f a ir and re a so na ble 9 compensation for s u ch work. All warra nty claims and/or 10 claims under a fra nchisor’s se rvice contra ct made by 11 fr anc his e d mo to r ve hic le de a le rs sh a ll b e pa id w ith in t hir ty 12 day s following the ir approva l provided, howe ver, that the 13 fra nchisor re tains the rig ht to audit such claims for a period of 14 two y ear s following the submissi on there of, and to c harge 15 back a ny amounts paid on fa l s e, fra udulent, incorre ct or 16 unsubstantiated claims. F or par ts . . . and labor 17 re im bursement, f

air a nd rea sonable c ompensation shall not be 18 l es s t han the pr ice a nd rate char g ed by

the fra nchised motor 19 vehicle de aler s in the co m m u nity or marke ting a

rea for like 20 service s to non-war ranty and/or non-se rvice contra ct 21 customers, provide d such price and rate ar e re asonable

. 22 23 2. All warr anty claims shall be either

approve d or disapprove d 24 wi thi n thir ty da y s af te r the ir re c e ipt . When any su c h c la im i s 25 disapproved the fra nchised motor vehic le dea ler shall be 26 notified in writing of its disapproval within said period. Ea ch 27 such notice sha ll stat e the spec ific g rounds upon which the 28 disapproval is base d. 29 30 N.Y Ve h. & T raf . L aw § 465. 5 31 32 Se c tio n 4 65 pla inl y imp os e s o n ma

nu fa c tur e r- fr anc hiso rs th e ob lig a tio n to re imb ur se11 1 fra n c h is e d mo to r v e h ic le d e a le r s f o r w ar r an ty r e p a ir p arts “ in a mo u n ts w h ic h r e f le c t f air a nd 2 re a so na

ble c omp e ns a tio n. ” Th e statut e lik e wi se pla inl y c on te mpl a te s th a t f

ra nc his e e s will su

bmi t 3 claims for suc h compensation. Be cause Fulton requested pay ment on past war

ranty reimburse ment 4 claims, the issue her e is whethe r GM’s pa y ment of the re quested amount discharg ed its duty to pay 5 u n d er t h e s t at ute, or whe ther it had a n additional obligation to pay more, re g ardle ss of what wa s 6 reque sted. That is, we must deter mine whether a “c laim” for pur poses of Sec tion 465 is a demand 7 for money in a particular amount, such t hat it is “paid” whe n the demande d amount is disbursed, or 8 whether

a “c laim” more ge nera lly is a si mple reque st for money , not nece ssarily for a ny particula r 9 a mou

nt, su c h th a t it is “ pa id” on ly wh e n the statut or y ra te is g ive n, re g ard le ss o f t

he a mou nt a c tua lly 10 reque sted. 11 Rely ing pr incipally on Ralph Oldsmo b i l e Inc. v. Gene ral Motors Corp. , No. 99 Civ. 12 45 67 (A GS) , 2 00 0 WL 14 59 76 7 ( S.D. N.Y

. Se pt. 29 , 2 00 0) , F ult on argue s th a t be c a

us e the statut e 13 imp os e s o n a

man ufac tur e r t

he du ty to p ro vid e statut or ily

de fi ne d “ fa ir

and re a so na ble 14 compensation” for warra nty parts, but say s nothing of a dealer’ s obligation to make a particula rized 15 claim reque sting a specific dollar fig ure, a manufa cture r is require d to pay the statutory

amount no 16 matter how muc h is requeste d—indeed, whe ther a ny specific dollar amount is reque sted at all. See 17 id. a t *5 -7 (c on c lud ingthat de a le rs c ou ld p ur su e cla im s a g a ins t G M und e r S e c tio n 4 65 de sp ite 18 reque sting a

nd acquie scing in pay

ment at lower

amounts). We disag ree . 19 The re levant dictionar y definition of “c laim” is “a de mand for c ompensation, bene fits, or 20 pay

ment” in conf

ormity with a law or

contra ct, and a lso “ the amount or payme nt of such a dem and .” 21 W

ebster’s Third New International Dictionary 414 (2002) ( emphasis added). A cla im is t hus not12 1 only

“[a] demand for pa

y ment in acc ordanc e with an insura nce policy

or other formal a

rra ng ement,” 2 but also “[t] he sum of money demande d .” TheAm e ric an He rit age Di cti on ar

y of t heEn gli sh 3 Language 341 (4th ed. 2000) ( emphasis adde d ). W e co n cl ude that the most natura l and obvious 4 un de rs tand ingof

“ c la im” in t

he c on te xt of

Se c tio n 4 65 is a

re qu e st f or re imb ur se me nt i n a

sp e c if ic 5 a mou

nt. 6 Th is r e a din g make s se ns e of Se c tio n 4 65 ’s br oa de r c on tex t. B y its pla in t e rm s, the statut e 7 oblige s a manufa cture r not only to provide fair and rea sonable compensation for warra nty parts, but 8 a lso : ( 1) to a

pp ro ve or dis a pp ro ve a ll w arr anty

c la ims “ wi thi n th ir

ty da y s a ft e r t he ir re c e ipt ” ; ( 2) to 9 notify

the dea ler in writing of any di s ap p roved claim within the thirty day period, “ stat[i ng ] t he 10 sp e c if

ic g ro un ds up on

wh ic h th e dis a

pp ro va l is ba se d” ; and (3 ) to pa y a pp ro ve d c la ims “ wi thi n th ir ty 11 da

y s f oll ow ingthe ir

a pp ro va l.” N. Y. Ve h. & T raf. L aw § 46 5. Th ou g h it is p os sib le to r e a d th is 12 lang uag e as c ontemplating the submissi on of cla ims without reg ard to amount, th e more natural 13 construction of the se provisions is tha t t h ey t o gether provide a me chanism by which dea lers and 14 manufa cture rs ca n identify

and communicate openly about ar eas o f d i s agr eeme nt as to what 15 c on sti tut e s “ fa ir a nd re a so na

ble c omp e ns a tio n. ” B ut thi s re qu ir e s that de a le rs su bmi t c la ims no t in 16 the abstrac t, but for specific amounts. Otherw ise it is hard to f athom how a manufa ct u re r m ight 17 approve or disapprove the claim in most cases, muc h less provide re asons for its re jection. Cf. 18 Darling’s v. Ford Motor Co. , 19 98 ME 23 2, ¶ 6, 71 9 A. 2d 11 1, 11 4 (1 99 8) (n oti ng , w ithre g ard to 19 a Ma ine statut e imp os ingsim ila r o bli g a tio ns on

ma nu fa c tur e rs, that “ [a]c c omp lis hin g the se 20 ob

je c tiv e s n e c e ssa

ri ly re qu ir es th a t a

de a le r s ub mit

a c la im that is su ff

ic ie ntl y ind ivi du a lize d to 21 enable a manuf

actur er to satisfy

these oblig ations.”).13 1 Fur

thermore , the New York Court of Appeals instructs courts to construe New York statutes 2 in way s that “avoid objec tionable, unre asonable or absur d conseque nces.” Lon g v . S tate , 7 N.Y.3d 3 26 9, 27 3, 85 2 N .E .2 d 1 15 0, 11 53 (2 00 6) ; see N.Y. Stat. L aw § 141. Adoptingthe position advance d 4 by F ult on wo uld unre a so na

bly burd e n ma

nu fa c tur e rs su c h a s GM , sin c e the y c ou ld n o lo ng e r a ssume 5 that simply

paying the full amount reque sted by a dea ler would resolve a

claim. Under

Fulton’s view, 6 if a manu fa c tur e r wis he d to pro te c t itse lf a g a ins t pote nti a lly e xpe ns ive lit ig a tio n, it wou ld h a ve to 7 c on du c t an in qu ir

y no t si mp ly wi th r e g ard to c on te ste d c la ims , b ut w ithre g ard to e ve ry c la im i n 8 ever

y marke ting a

rea in New Yor

k State to asce rtain the pre vailing ma rket rate

. Such investigations 9 could consider ably incre ase the administrative costs of the c laims sy stem and require the 10 manufa cture r to spend more time proce ss i ng eac h claim. This delay would not benef

it the 11 manu fa c tur e r o r de a le rs . We se e no ba sis fo r c on c lud ing that th e Ne w Y or k le g isl a tur e int e nd e d to 12 inj e c t unne c e ssa

ry a dmi nis tr a tiv e c os ts a

nd de lay s in to t

he no rm a l bu sin e ss p ract ic e of c la im 13 settlement, particula rly when our alternative and more plausible c onstruction of Section 465 avoids 14 this result while imposing on deale rs only the relatively trivial burden of making timely reque sts for 15 c omp e ns a tio n at hi g he r r a te s th an w hat th e manu fa c tur e r t y pic a lly pa y s. 16 We note also, as did the district cour t, that allowing F ulton to reopen c losed ac counts by 17 means of a

lawsuit and to disturb previously paid claims would undermine a number of common law 18 principles rec og nized in New York, such as the doctrines of acc oun t s tated, see Rodkinson v. 19 Haec ker , 2 48 N. Y. 48 0, 48 5, 16 2 N .E . 4 93 , 4 95 (1 92 8) (“ As a general r ule , w he re an a c c ount i s 20 ma de up and

re nd e re d .

. . [an d] th e pa rt y re c e ivi ngit .

. . makes no obje c tio n w ith in a re a so na ble 21 time, his sil ence will be construed into an ac quiesce nce in its justness, and he will be bound by it as14 1 if it wer e a stated account.”) , equitable e stoppel, see Shonde l J. v. M ark D. , 7 N.Y.3d 320, 326, 853 2 N.E.2d 610, 613 (2006) (“The purpose of equitable e stoppel is to preclude a person f rom asser ting 3 a rig ht after

having led another

to form the reasonable belief that the rig ht would not be asser ted, and 4 loss or prejudice to the other would result if the rig ht were asser ted.”) , and wa iver, Ge n. Mo tor s 5 Ac c e

pta nc e Cor

p. v . Cl ift on -F

ineCe nt

. Sch . Dis t. , 85 N.Y.2d 232, 236, 647 N.E.2d 1329, 1331 6 (1995) ( “Waiver r equire s the v o l u n t ar y and intentional aba

ndonment of a know n rig ht which, but 7 for the w aiver , would have be en enf orce able. Waiver

may be esta blished by aff

irmative conduct or 8 by failure to act so as to e vince an intent not to c laim a purported a dvantag e.” ( citations omitt ed))

. 9 We need not conclude that these doctrines are direc tly applicable to note that Fulton’s interpr etation 10 of Section 465 is y et more implausible be cause it is at odds with these basic pr ece pts of the common 11 law. See N.Y. Stat. L aw § 153 ( “A c hang e in l o n g est ablished rules of law is not deeme d to have 12 be e n in te nd e d b y the L e g isl a tur e in t

he a bs e nc e of a c le ar mani fes tat ion

of su c h in te nti on .” ); c

f. 13 Hec hter v. N.Y

. Life Ins. Co. , 4 6 N .Y .2 d 3 4, 39 , 3 85 N. E. 2d 55 1, 55 4 ( 19 78 ) ( “ [I ]t is a g e ne ra l r ule 14 of statutory

construction that a c lear and s p ec ific leg islative intent is required to over ride the 15 common law.”)

. 16 Finally , our conc lusion is bol stered by the dec isions of severa l courts interpre ting a nalog ous 17 statutes in other jurisdictions. See W oods v. MONY Legacy Lif e Ins. Co. , 84 N.Y.2d 280, 285, 641 18 N.E.2d 1070, 1072 (1994) (consider ing othe r jurisdictions’ trea tment of similar law in construing 19 a Ne w Y or k s tatut e ); see also N.Y. Stat. L aw § 262 (“I n interpre ting an ambig uous statute of Ne w 20 York, the c ourt may consider the construction placed on a si milar statute of another state or c ountry 21 by

its courts.”). Ea ch of these courts has arrived at the result we reac h here , concludingthat befor e15 1 a dea ler may

hold a manufa cture r liable for reimburse ment bey ond the m anufa cture r’s standard rate, 2 it first must s ubmit a claim to the manufa cture r re questing the additional amount. See Jim W hite 3 Agenc

y Co. v. Nissan Motor Corp. , 126 F.3d 8 3 2 , 836 (6th Cir. 1997) (c oncluding that deale r 4 “ wa ive d it s r ig ht [und e r O hio law] to re ta il p ay me nt o n p re vio us ly

su bmi tted wa

rr anty c la ims 5 beca

use it had fa iled to reque st pay ment at rates o t h er t h an co s t plus a 30% markup, the amount 6 state d in

the de a le rs hip c on tr a c t” ); Acadia Motors, Inc . v. Ford Motor Co. , 844 F. Supp. 819, 828 7 (D . Me. 19 94 ) ( “ To the e xten t th a t Pla int if fs re qu e st ‘ dama g e s f

or [F or d’ s] pa st f

a ilure s to re imb ur se 8 the Plaintiff deale rs at the statutory rate ,’ .

. . Plaintiffs did not make a n adequately

particula rized 9 claim to For d prior to bring ing this ac tion. [ Under Maine law ,] Ford is entitled to some notice 10 informing it of the pertinent facts re g ardingthe claim that would ena ble it to determine whe ther the 11 claim should be appr oved or de nied.”) , rev’d in part on other grounds , 44 F.3d 1050 ( 1st Cir. 1995); 12 Kronon M

otor Sale s, Inc. v . Ford Motor Co. , No. 93 Civ . 2 85 3, 19 94 WL12 73 22 , at *3 (N .D . I ll. 13 April 7, 1994) (“ [T] he inesc apable fac t is that sin ce Kronon did not submit a claim for 14 reimburse ment at its retail rate [under I llinois law], it necessar ily acquie sced in For d’s desig nated 15 reimburse ment rate .”), aff’d on other grounds , 4 1 F .3 d 3 38 (7 th C ir . 1 99 4) ; see also Darling’s , 1998 16 ME 23 2, ¶ 7 , 7 19 A. 2d a t 11 4- 15 (i nte rpr eti ng Ma ine statut e a s r e qu ir ingde a le r t o s ub mit 17 “individualized claim” in order to r ece ive additional compensation on previously paid claim, which 18 could b e ac compl ished by specify ing, a mong othe r thing s, the diffe renc e betwe en the amount 19 re c e ive d p ur su ant t o the manu fa c tur e r’ s aut omate d sy ste m and the de a le r’ s r e ta il p ri c e ); c f. Lib e rty 20 Lincoln-Merc ury v. Ford M otor Co. , 134 F.3d 557, 573- 74 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that deale r that 21 acc epted pa

y ment at s tandar d rate could not rec over incrementa l reimburse ment under N ew Jersey16 1 statut e a

bs e nt t ime ly

re qu e sts fo r a dd iti on a l pa y me nt o n th os e c la ims purs ua nt t o f ra nc his e 2 ag ree ment). We see no r eason w hy New Y ork’s law should be interpr eted a ny differ ently

than the 3 statut e s c on sid e re d b y the se c ourt s. 4 Acc ording ly , we hold that Fulton m ay not rec over unde r Ne w York V ehicle a nd Traf fic L aw 5 § 465 for a dditional sums on previously paid war rant y cl aims, absent evide nce that it subm itted 6 claims for a dditional pay ment and that these claims wer e re jected by GM contra

ry to the statute’s 7 mandate. F ulton’s belief that submitt ing such claims would have be en futile is belied by the re cord, 8 which shows that GM provide s numerous means for a de aler to reque st additional compensation 9 bey ond what is allowed by the standard WI NS f ormula, such as the H -route, P code , and “c ase a dd 10 cre dit” proce dures, not to mention t h e p o s s i b ility of simply

writing a letter

to a re g ional GM 11 re pr e se ntativ e . F ur the rm or e , b e c a

us e we c on c lud e that a de a le r may no t ho ld a manu fa c tur e r l ia ble 12 under Section 465 for additional compensation without first having submitt ed a cl ai m fo r s uch 13 pay

ment, and bec ause the re is no evide nce that Fulton has done so, it follows that Fulton is precluded 14 fr om r e c e ivi ngthe pr os pe c tiv e re lie f i t se e ks . I t f oll ow s a s w e ll that th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr operly 15 g rante d summary judgme nt dismi ssing

F u lton’ s contrac t claim, which is derivative of its claim under 16 Section 465. 17 We note that it is unnecessar y for us to dec ide the issue, about whic h t h e par ties argue at 18 leng th, whether

a dea ler or a manufa cture r is in the best position to determine the rate cha rg ed in a 19 deale r’s c ommunity for non- warranty

repa ir parts. We hold only that a dea ler may

not rec over 20 additional sums on previously paid warranty claims, or secure an injunction order ing a manufa cture r 21 to reimburse at a hig her r ate than it customar ily pay s, absent ev i d en ce that the deale r submitted aWe do note, howeve r, that the amendments to N.Y. Ve h. & T raf . L aw § 465 discusse d 6 above c reate a mec hanism by which a de aler

may establish the price and rate they char g e nonwa rr anty c us tom e rs fo r p art s and

c la im s uc h p ri c e and

rate , in c lud ingan ave ra g e mark up , a s th e ir reimburse ment rate with the benef it of a re buttable pre sumption t hat the cla imed reimburse ment rate is fair a

nd rea sonable. See Act of Aug . 5, 2008, ch. 490, sec . 3, N.Y. Ve h. & T raf . L aw § 465, 2008 N.Y. Sess. L aws 1329, 1338-40 ( McKinney ). 17 1 claim for a dditional pay ment that was re

jected by the manufa cture r contra

ry to Section 465. Whether 2 a manuf

actur er c ould disapprove suc h a claim, consistent with Section 465, on the g round that the 3 de a le r did no t pro vid e a de qu a te inf or matio n to e sta

bli shits c omm

un ity rate fo r n on -w arr anty

re pa ir 4 p art s i s a

qu e s t i o nw e l e a v e f

o r an o t h e r d ay. 6 5 6 Conclusion 7 We a g re e wi th t he dis tr ic t co ur

t th a t an a

uto mob ile manu fa c tur e r d isc ha rg e s it s d uty to 8 provide fa ir and re asonable compensation for war ranty repa ir parts under New

York Ve hicle and 9 Traf

fic L aw § 465 whe n it p ay s a war ranty claim in the amount re quested by the dea ler. A 10 manufa cture r is not expos ed to liab i l i t y fo r failure to pay additional amounts when the de aler 11 re qu e ste d a

nd a c qu ie sc e d in

re imb ur se me nt a

t th e manu fa c tur e r’ s sta

nd ard rate and ne ve r a sk e d to 12 be paid at a hig her r ate. We th erefore aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt 13 dis mis sin g F ult on ’s c la ims

. 14 15 16 1718 1