In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs had failed to offer any factual support for their claim that the network glass programs were designed and implemented with the express purpose of eliminating small, independent shops from the market. Instead, the court concluded that insurance companies had “demanded the formation of networks to manage claims and more efficiently arrange for the services required by policyholders,” and that “nothing indicates that the networks operate as anything more than preferred providers.” Holding that plaintiff’s conspiracy count could not proceed “based solely upon the existence of contracts between insurance companies and auto glass repair providers,” the court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim. Significantly, the Court noted that while policyholders were encouraged to utilize network affiliated shops, they were not required to do so, and thus the independent shops remained free to compete for policyholder auto glass repair business.

    The Court then proceeded to plaintiffs’ Section 2 monopolization claim. Finding that “the auto glass repair market includes numerous players, both large networks and independent shops, none of which individually wields the power to control prices or exclude competition,” the court had little difficulty concluding that plaintiffs’ monopolization claim was properly dismissed, and affirmed the district court’s ruling on that claim as well.