Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies	12) Commitments and Contingencies On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserted various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law and fraud. The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them. The Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts. On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. On March 24, 2017, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction but Plaintiff was given 30 days to attempt to replead. Instead of filing an amended complaint, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff commenced a new putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-02310-JFB-SIL. The new complaint names Petro, Inc. d/b/a Petro Home Services as the sole defendant. The allegations and claims in the new complaint are substantially similar to those in the prior complaint filed in the District of New Jersey. No class has yet been certified in this action. The Partnership believes the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the action; at this time we cannot assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter. The Partnership’s operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers hazardous liquids such as home heating oil and propane. In the ordinary course of business, the Partnership is a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation. The Partnership records a liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable. We do not believe these matters, when considered individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. The Partnership maintains insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverages and deductibles we believe are reasonable and prudent. However, the Partnership cannot assure that this insurance will be adequate to protect it from all material expenses related to current and potential future claims, legal proceedings and litigation, including the above mentioned action, as certain types of claims may be excluded from our insurance coverage. If we incur substantial liability and the damages are not covered by insurance, or are in excess of policy limits, or if we incur liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, then our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

12) Commitments and Contingencies

On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserted various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law and fraud. The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them. The Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts. On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. On March 24, 2017, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction but Plaintiff was given 30 days to attempt to replead.

Instead of filing an amended complaint, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff commenced a new putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-02310-JFB-SIL. The new complaint names Petro, Inc. d/b/a Petro Home Services as the sole defendant. The allegations and claims in the new complaint are substantially similar to those in the prior complaint filed in the District of New Jersey. No class has yet been certified in this action. The Partnership believes the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the action; at this time we cannot assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter.

The Partnership’s operations are subject to the operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and transporting and otherwise providing for use by consumers hazardous liquids such as home heating oil and propane. In the ordinary course of business, the Partnership is a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation. The Partnership records a liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable. We do not believe these matters, when considered individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

The Partnership maintains insurance policies with insurers in amounts and with coverages and deductibles we believe are reasonable and prudent. However, the Partnership cannot assure that this insurance will be adequate to protect it from all material expenses related to current and potential future claims, legal proceedings and litigation, including the above mentioned action, as certain types of claims may be excluded from our insurance coverage. If we incur substantial liability and the damages are not covered by insurance, or are in excess of policy limits, or if we incur liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, then our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.