Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-2345,80-2345 |
| Citation | 660 F.2d 1195 |
| Parties | 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,303 QUALITY AUTO BODY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Paul T. Kalinich, Glen Ellyn, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
William A. Montgomery, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Alan H. Silberman, Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN, * Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Quality Auto Body, Inc. ("Quality") appeals from a summary judgment for defendants, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), in an antitrust action involving automobile damage claim procedures. Quality's complaint, filed in August 1979, alleges that the defendant insurance companies 1 are violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) by processing damage claims in a manner which fixes the price Quality can charge for automobile repairs and by boycotting Quality if it fails to adhere to the defendants' price. In April 1980, both defendants filed motions for summary judgment supported by affidavits and sworn depositions. Shortly thereafter, Quality conceded that there were no material issues of fact and filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the relevant issues of law. On August 19, 1980, the district court granted defendants' motion, denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the case. Quality filed a timely appeal, and we affirm.
This case focuses on the policies and practices of the defendant insurance companies in processing automobile damage claims. Each company has developed its own system for dealing with the claims of policyholders in what it deems an economical and efficient manner. Quality does not dispute either company's explanation of the basic facts of their respective damage claim procedures.
Under the terms of an Allstate automobile insurance contract, the owner of a damaged vehicle must contact the insurer before any repairs are made. The company has the option to "pay for the loss in money or ... repair the damaged property." In either case, Allstate's liability is limited to the reasonable cost of repair or replacement with a "product of like kind and quality."
After an Allstate adjuster has examined the loss, he prepares an estimate based on his individual evaluation of the extent of the damage to the vehicle and the competitive cost of repairing that damage. The competitive rates used by Allstate are established by Allstate personnel on the basis of market information gathered from the reports of adjusters who frequent area repair shops and from the unsolicited statements of shop owners who inform the company of their rates from time to time.
Most of Allstate's claims are processed under the company's "shop of the customer's choice" policy. This policy permits the insured to choose the shop which will repair the damaged vehicle. After Allstate has prepared an estimate and determined the extent of its contractual obligation, the adjuster will attempt to reach an "agreed price" with the representative of the shop selected by the customer so that the insurance settlement will cover the entire cost of repairs (less any deductible). In the event When the insured has no preference or asks Allstate for a recommendation, the company provides the insured with the name of a shop or shops which will in all likelihood be willing to repair the vehicle for the price shown on the Allstate estimate. The company claims, however, that the shop remains free to change its quoted rates at any time, to question the nature and scope of the repair indicated on the estimate, to negotiate a different price for repair of the vehicle and even to refuse to perform the work at all.
that Allstate is unable to reach an "agreed price" with the shop, Allstate will pay the insured an amount which represents, in the company's opinion, the competitive cost of repair. If the insured still wants his selected shop to perform the repairs, the insured must pay the difference between the company's contractual obligation and the rate charged by the shop.
Allstate will also permit certain shops to begin repairing vehicle damage insured by Allstate without waiting for the company to inspect the loss. This "direct repair program" was introduced by Allstate in 1975 allegedly to improve the quality and speed of service which the company provides to policyholders and claimants. Allstate personnel determine the circumstances under which a shop is chosen for participation in this program. The company selects shops which, based on past experience, prepare competent estimates and perform quality repairs at competitive prices. If Allstate is dissatisfied with a shop's repair work or its estimates, the company will no longer utilize the shop in the direct repair program. Allstate emphasizes that this program is not a substitute for the company's "shop of the customer's choice" policy and is used only in cases where the customer expresses no shop preference.
State Farm's procedures for handling damage claims are very similar to those used by Allstate. State Farm agents appraise damage to a vehicle by evaluating the parts which need to be replaced, the price of those parts and the number of hours needed to reasonably complete the repairs. The cost of repairs is calculated at the prevailing competitive price for the required parts and labor in the relevant geographic area. This price is determined through periodic surveys of local garages conducted by State Farm personnel. The information obtained during the survey is assembled into a garage directory, which lists the names and addresses of all participating facilities in a particular area and the parts discounts and hourly labor rates charged by each facility. State Farm's prevailing competitive price generally represents the rate charged by a substantial number of the shops surveyed.
At the time this suit was filed, State Farm had determined that the prevailing competitive prices for the area serviced by Quality were $14.00 per hour for labor and 15% off the list price for new parts on domestic automobiles. These prices had been computed following a telephone survey of 86 shops (including Quality) in the area. The survey revealed that 84 of the 86 shops charged an hourly rate of $14.00 or less. Quality, however, charged $16.00 per hour and increased the rate to $20.00 per hour several months later. The survey also indicated that over 70% of the shops offered some discount off the manufacturer's suggested list price for new parts on domestic cars. Quality was one of only a handful of shops that refused to give any discount at all.
Like Allstate, State Farm permits the insured to select the garage of his choice, but the company will pay only what is "reasonable or necessary" to reimburse the owner in accordance with the terms of the applicable insurance policy. A garage is free, however, to challenge the nature and scope of the repairs listed on a State Farm estimate and may negotiate with State Farm for a modification in the amount of the damage appraisal. If an insured has no
shop preference and requests a recommendation from State Farm, the company will provide the insured with a list of conveniently located shops which will be likely to perform the required repairs at a competitive price. But State Farm emphasizes that these shops may choose to change their labor rates, parts discounts or repair policies at any time.
Quality charges that defendants have, by concerted action, established claim procedures which constitute per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Specifically, Quality maintains that defendants' repair estimates illegally fix the price which Quality may charge for labor and parts at the lowest prevailing competitive rate. If Quality seeks a higher rate, defendants inform the insured that they will pay only the prevailing competitive price and suggest that the insured remove the damaged vehicle to a shop which will perform the work at the defendants' price. Quality claims that this pricing policy artificially suppresses the rates charged for auto repair in violation of the antitrust laws.
In addition, Quality contends that the defendants maintain lists of body repair shops which agree to charge the rates established by the defendants and direct insureds to these preferred shops for automobile repairs. According to Quality, these vertical agreements not only reinforce defendants' price structure but also effectively withhold business from shops which do not participate in defendants' pricing program. Quality claims that defendants' action amounts to a boycott of non-conforming shops and also violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In ruling on both plaintiff's and defendants' motions for summary judgment, the district court grouped plaintiff's claims into three categories: (1) horizontal price-fixing (involving alleged agreements between Allstate and State Farm to pay damage claims at the lowest competitive rate and to compute damage estimates on that basis); (2) vertical price-fixing (involving alleged agreements between each insurance company and "preferred" repair shops to perform work at the rate established by the company's estimate); and (3) boycotts (involving alleged efforts on the part of the insurance company to deny business to plaintiff by refusing to reimburse plaintiff at a rate which exceeds the lowest prevailing competitive rate). The court concluded, as to alleged horizontal price-fixing, that "documents submitted by defendants and uncontradicted by plaintiff conclusively establish that there have been no agreements between the defendants regarding the establishment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Legal Principles Defining the Scope of the Federal Antitrust Exemption for Insurance
... ... does not depend on the quality of the state regulatory scheme ... or on ... to include "tying" of products, such as an auto ... insurer's requirement that ... Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin ... , above, 328 ... U.S ... In Uniforce ... Temporary Personnel, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation ... conspired to limit coverage for certain auto body ... repairs to the cost of less expensive ... Co., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., ... 607 F.2d 135 (5th ... Cir ... ...
-
G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc.
...S.Ct. 465, 468, 63 L.Ed. 992; Gilbuilt Homes, Inc. v. Continental Homes, etc., supra, 667 F.2d 209, 211; Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (7th Cir.1981) 660 F.2d 1195, 1205; Gaf Corporation v. Circle Floor Co. (D.C.N.Y.1971) 329 F.Supp. 823, 828.) An antitrust case must be based......
-
In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litig., No. 19 CV 6734
...Such claims plainly involve core elements of the "business of insurance." And while the plaintiff in Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 660 F.2d 1195, 1203 (7th Cir. 1981), was not a policyholder but an auto repair shop that performed work on vehicles insured by the defendants, ......
-
Williams v. 5300 Columbia Pike Corp.
...1980); Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1980-2 Trade Cas. ¶ 63,507, at 76,696, 1980 WL 1887 (N.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1020, 102 S.Ct. 1717, 72 L.Ed.2d 138 (1982); Knuth v. Erie-Crawford Dairy Co-op. Ass'n, 326 F.Supp. 48, 53 (W.......
-
Dealing with Competitors
...produce evidence showing that the defendants engaged in consciously parallel action.”); Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 660 F.2d 1195, 1200 (7th Cir. 1981) (finding defendants’ conduct not parallel); In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., No. 92-5495, slip op. at 21, 22-23 (D.N.J. ......
-
Provider Relationships
...Proctor v. State Farm Mut. Autom. Ins. Co . , 675 F.2d 308, 337-38 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co . , 660 F.2d 1195, 1203 (7th Cir. 1981); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross, 481 F.2d 80, 84 (3d Cir. 1973); Marion Healthcare LLC v. Southern Ill. Healthcare, No. ......
-
Table of cases
...408 (1946), 38 PSI Repair Servs. v. Honeywell, Inc . , 104 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 1997), 119 Q Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1981), 36, 124, 126, 128, 133, 141 R Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co . , 364 U.S. 656 (1961), 79 Ratino v. Me......
-
Overview of Exemptions and Defenses
...Auto. Ins. Co . , 675 F.2d 308, 312 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 839 (1982); Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co . , 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1981); Workman v. State Farm Mut. Auto . Ins. Co . , 520 F. Supp. 610, 615 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Overview of Exemptions and Defenses ......