Full opinion text
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: This case is before us for the second time on appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the District Court. Appellants, several automobile repair shops, brought this suit ten years ago alleging that appellees, five automobile insurance companies, had conspired to fix the price of automobile body damage repair work in violation of section 1 et seq. of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (1976). Appellants’ theory of liability has changed somewhat over the course of this litigation. Essentially, they now claim that the insurance companies agreed to a common formula for reimbursing their insureds for the cost of automobile damage repair work. In particular, they allege a horizontal agreement among appellees to pay automobile damage claims on the basis of an agreed “prevailing” hourly labor rate, thereby artificially depressing the price of automobile repair work. Appellants claim that appellees implemented this alleged horizontal agreement by entering into vertical arrangements with certain “preferred” or “captive” repair shops that agreed to perform repair work at the rates prescribed by appellees. When this suit was initiated a decade ago, appellants also claimed that appellees had engaged in a group “boycott” of “independent” repair shops; however, appellants abandoned their “boycott” claim during their last appearance before the District Court, and they have not pressed the argument on this appeal. The District Court first granted summary judgment to appellees in 1975, on the ground that the challenged practices — both horizontal and vertical — were immunized from federal antitrust attack under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015 (1976) (hereinafter referred to as the “McCarran Act”). This judgment was premised on findings that the disputed practices constituted the “business of insurance” and were “regulated by State Law.” Id. § 1012(b). This court affirmed, but the Supreme Court subsequently vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979), concerning the definition of the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. On remand, the District Court again granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that (1) Royal Drug did not alter the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the McCarran Act immunized the alleged horizontal agreement from antitrust scrutiny, (2) the McCarran Act probably also immunized the alleged vertical arrangements and (3) even if the Act did not provide immunity, the vertical arrangements did not violate the antitrust laws. Apj>ellants attack the District Court’s decision primarily on the ground that the McCarran Act antitrust exemption applies to neither the horizontal nor the vertical practices challenged in this case because they do not constitute the “business of insurance.” Both sides argue on appeal that the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Drug clearly dictates a result in their favor on this issue. On the contrary, we have found it difficult to apply the Court’s definition of the “business of insurance” in Royal Drug to the facts of this case. We are not alone in this struggle to interpret Royal Drug; courts and commentators have offered widely divergent views about the scope of the McCarran Act antitrust exemption following Royal Drug After fully considering the Court’s analysis in Royal Drug, we hold that, as to the horizontal claim, appellees are entitled to summary judgment because the alleged agreement between the insurance companies constitutes the “business of insurance” and, therefore, is exempt under the McCarran Act. In addition, we have carefully reviewed, and liberally construed, the documents and testimony in the record cited by appellants in support of their horizontal claim. We find that none of this evidence supports their allegations of a horizontal agreement or conspiracy among appellees to fix the price of automobile repair work. Thus, even if we assume, arguendo, that the McCarran Act exemption does not apply to the alleged horizontal agreement, we can find no merit to the antitrust claim on this portion of the case. Consequently, we hold, in the alternative, that appellees have demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue of fact material to appellants’ horizontal claim and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As to the alleged vertical arrangements, we hold that the District Court erred in concluding that these arrangements constitute the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. Nonetheless, we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue because we agree with its conclusion, not disputed on appeal, that the vertical arrangements themselves do not violate the antitrust laws. Finally, because we find no evidentiary support for the alleged horizontal agreement, we reject appellants’ claim that appellees implemented a horizontal scheme by entering into vertical agreements with preferred or'captive repair shops. We offer no opinion, however, as to the legality of any such implementation if shown to exist in another case. I. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE A. The First District Court Decision Appellants brought this suit against five insurance companies on February 9, 1972. On December 18, 1975, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the five insurance companies on the ground that their activities were exempt from the antitrust laws under the McCarran Act. To qualify for exemption under that Act, the challenged practices must (1) constitute the “business of insurance,” (2) be “regulated by State Law,” and (3) not involve any “boycott, coercion or intimidation.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1012(b), 1013(b) (1976). The District Court found that the practices and procedures involved in adjusting and settling automobile damage claims, which were an integral part of the activities challenged by appellants, constituted the “business of insurance.” To conclude, the settlement and payment of damage repair claims is (1) a basic part of the contractual obligation owed by the insurance company to the insured, whether or not the payment is made to the insured or on his behalf, (2) directly affects the rate-making structure of the insurance company and the level of premiums to be charged, and (3) is connected directly with the writing of the policy, its interpretation and enforcement. The practices challenged here are peculiar to the business of insurance within the meaning of the McCarran Act. Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 406 F.Supp. 27, 30 (D.D.C. 1975). Broadly construing the McCarran Act requirement that the challenged business of insurance be “regulated by State Law,” 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), the District Court also concluded that the state law in Virginia and Pennsylvania regulated the automobile insurance business sufficiently to satisfy this requirement. 406 F.Supp. at 31. Finally, very narrowly construing the “boycott” exception in the McCarran Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1013(b), the court held that appellants had produced inadequate evidentiary support for their allegations of “boycott, coercion and intimidation” by appellees, particularly “since [appellants’] services were utilized throughout the period of this suit by persons insured by [appellees].” 406 F.Supp. at 31-32. B. The Court of Appeals Decision Appellants challenged the District Court’s decision on the grounds that (1) the disputed insurance company practices did not constitute the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act, and (2) they had raised material issues of fact concerning their boycott claim. On June 17, 1977, a panel of this court affirmed the District Court’s decision. ' The court held that the alleged horizontal agreement was the “business of insurance” and was therefore protected under the McCarran Act. The court stated: [W]e have little doubt that what appellants have characterized as the “core” of their case, the alleged horizontal agreement to pay insureds’ claims on the basis of the prevailing labor rate, as well as appellees’ supposed adherence to a common formula to compute damage estimates, fits within the “core” of the “business of insurance.” The essence of the automobile insurance contract is the insurance company’s agreement, in return for a premium, to make payments to or on behalf of the policyholder for losses arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile. The determination by the insurance company of the amount to be paid in discharge of this contractual obligation is at the heart of the relationship between insurer and insured, and is directly connected with the reliability, interpretation, and enforcement of the insurance contract. Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 561 F.2d 262, 267 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Acknowledging that the alleged vertical arrangements presented a more difficult question under the McCarran Act, the court nonetheless held that “the alleged agreements with preferred shops and the asserted group boycott of non-cooperative shops are connected closely enough to the contractual relationships between appellees and their policyholders, and with the reliability, interpretation, and enforcement of those contracts, to qualify as the business of insurance.” Id. at 268 (footnote omitted). In support of its conclusion, the court cited the District Court decision in Royal Drug Co. v. Group Life & Health Insurance Co., 415 F.Supp. 343, 347-48 (W.D.Tex.1976), that was subsequently rejected by the Fifth Circuit and by the Supreme Court. The court also emphasized “the close relationship between the cost of reimbursing damage claims . .. and the insurance rates charged by appellees,” an approach later criticized by commentators. 561 F.2d at 268. Finally, although the court rejected the District Court’s narrow interpretation of the McCarran Act’s “boycott” exception, id. at 271-75, it nevertheless affirmed the grant of summary judgment on this issue because it found that even after three years of extensive discovery appellants were “unable to point to any evidence whatsoever” that supported their boycott claim. Id. at 276. C. The Supreme Court’s Remand in Light of Royal Drug On March 5, 1979, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Court of Appeals decision for further consideration in light of the decision in Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979). Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 440 U.S. 942, 99 S.Ct. 1417, 59 L.Ed.2d 631 (1979). On November 9, 1979, this court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s action. Because the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Drug was the basis for the remand and continued proceedings in this case, it is appropriate to set out the facts and the Court’s reasoning in Royal Drug in some detail. In Royal Drug, a group of pharmacies in Texas sued Blue Shield of Texas and three other pharmacies, alleging that they had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into agreements fixing the retail prices of prescription drugs. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stewart for a five-Justice majority, held that the challenged agreements did not constitute the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. The “pharmacy agreements” at issue in Royal Drug were related to the insurance policies issued by Blue Shield. Under the policies, insured persons could purchase prescription drugs for the price of two dollars from any pharmacy that had entered into a “pharmacy agreement” with Blue Shield. Alternatively, policyholders could purchase drugs from a non-participating pharmacy at the full price charged by the pharmacy, and Blue Shield would reimburse them for seventy-five percent of the difference between that price and two dollars. The pharmacy agreements required participating pharmacies to furnish prescription drugs to Blue Shield policyholders for no more than two dollars and required Blue Shield to reimburse the pharmacies for their actual cost of acquiring the drugs. In effect, the agreements limited the participating pharmacies’ markup to two dollars per item. Royal Drug, 440 U.S. at 209-10, 99 S.Ct. at 1072. The Court began its analysis of whether the pharmacy agreements fell within the protection of the McCarran Act by emphasizing that the language of that statute exempts from the antitrust laws the “business of insurance,” not the “business of insurers.” Id. at 211, 99 S.Ct. at 1073. It focused on two elements in defining the “business of insurance”: (1) the spreading and underwriting of risk, and (2) the contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured. Analyzing the first element, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the pharmacy agreements involved the underwriting of risk. The fallacy of petitioners’ position is that they confuse the obligations of Blue Shield under its insurance policies, which insure against the risk that policyholders will be unable to pay for prescription drugs during the period of coverage, and the agreements between Blue Shield and the participating pharmacies, which serve only to minimize the costs Blue Shield incurs in fulfilling its underwriting obligations. . .. The Pharmacy Agreements thus do not involve any underwriting or spreading of risk, but are merely arrangements for the purchase of goods and services by Blue Shield.... Such cost-savings arrangements may well be sound business practice, and may well inure ultimately to the benefit of policyholders in the form of lower premiums, but they are not the “business of insurance.” 440 U.S. at 213-14, 99 S.Ct. at 1074 (footnotes omitted). Emphasizing the “important distinction between risk underwriting and risk reduction,” id. at 214 n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 1074 n.12, the Court concluded that “[t]he Pharmacy Agreements are thus legally indistinguishable from countless other business arrangements that may be made by insurance companies to keep their costs low and thereby also keep low the level of premiums charged to their policyholders.” Id. at 215, 99 S.Ct. at 1075. Turning to the second element of its test, the Court stated that the pharmacy agreements were not between insurer and insured; rather, they were separate contractual arrangements for the purchase of goods and services other than insurance. The Court rejected as “prov[ing] too much” the argument that the agreements “so closely affect the ‘reliability, interpretation, and enforcement’ of the insurance contract and ‘relate so closely to their status as reliable insurers’ as to fall within the exempted area.” Id. at 216, 99 S.Ct. at 1075 (quoting SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 460, 89 S.Ct. 564, 568, 21 L.Ed.2d 668 (1969)) (footnote omitted). If every business decision affecting costs and premiums fell within the protection of the McCarran Act, the Court reasoned, the Act would in effect exempt the “business of insurance companies” rather than the “business of insurance.” 440 U.S. at 216-17, 99 S.Ct. at 1075-76. The Court found that the legislative history of the McCarran Act supported its narrow interpretation of the term “business of insurance.” It explained that the applicability of the federal antitrust laws to insurance companies was a “secondary concern” in the passage of the McCarran Act and pointed out that Congress had rejected an earlier bill that would have entirely exempted the insurance industry from the antitrust laws. Id. at 218-20, 99 S.Ct. at 1076-77. The legislative history of the Act revealed that Congress’ major concern in enacting the “business of insurance” exemption was to protect from the antitrust laws combined efforts in collecting and sharing statistical data and cooperative ratemaking by insurance companies. These concerted activities were viewed as essential for accurate and efficient underwriting of risk. The Court found nothing in that history to suggest that Congress intended the exemption to be so broad as to include the purchase of goods and services from outside the insurance industry. Id. at 220-24, 99 S.Ct. at 1077-79. Finally, the Court noted that its interpretation of the McCarran Act exemption was consistent with the principle that exemptions from the antitrust laws should be narrowly construed. Id. at 231, 99 S.Ct. at 1083. Justice Brennan’s dissent criticized the majority’s rigid test for determining which practices constitute the “business of insurance.” He, along with Chief Justice Burger, Justice Marshall and Justice Powell, would have held that the McCarran Act protected the pharmacy agreements “because they (1) directly obtain the very benefits promised in the policy and therefore directly affect rates, cost, and insurer reliability, and (2) themselves constitute a critical element of risk ‘prediction.’ ” Id. at 252-53, 99 S.Ct. at 1093-94 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (footnotes omitted). D. The District Court Decision on Remand On remand, the District Court granted the renewed motions for summary judgment filed by all five appellees. Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [1980-81] Trade Cases (CCH) 163,591 (D.D.C.1980). In a memorandum opinion, the District Court held that the decision in Royal Drug did not disturb the prior ruling of the Court of Appeals that the alleged horizontal agreement among the insurance companies constituted the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. Three reasons were offered for this holding: (1) the issue decided in Royal Drug concerned only vertical agreements between a single insurer and several pharmacies; (2) the alleged horizontal agreement met the Royal Drug criteria for determining what constitutes the business of insurance because the agreement “is directly related to the insurance relationship between insurer and insured and involves claims procedures, which are an important determinant of commonly made rates and the spreading of risk;” and (3) the Solicitor General’s amicus curiae brief in Royal Drug specifically compared the pharmacy agreements in Royal Drug to the horizontal agreement in Proctor and concluded that the horizontal agreement should be regarded as the “business of insurance” because it is a wholly intra-industry agreement concerning payment of claims. Id. at 77,139-40 (footnote omitted). The District Court assumed that the Supreme Court had remanded the case because the Court of Appeals had cited the lower court opinion in Royal Drug, which was subsequently reversed, in support of its holding on the vertical claim. The District Court concluded, however, that the written provider agreements in Royal Drug were distinguishable from the vertical arrangements in this case and that Royal Drug probably did not alter the Court of Appeals decision that the vertical arrangements constituted the “business of insurance.” The District Court also held that, even if the holding of the Court of Appeals on the vertical arrangements was wrong in light of Royal Drug, summary judgment was still appropriate because the alleged vertical arrangements were lawful under standard antitrust analysis. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court emphasized that the record was devoid of any evidentiary support for appellants’ allegations of coercion and intimidation of repair shops, and that appellants had abandoned any claims of a boycott of non-cooperative shops. Id. at 77,140-41. II. ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants have winnowed somewhat their arguments on appeal. As the District Court noted below, appellants expressly abandoned any claim of boycott in their opposition to appellees’ renewed motions for summary judgment. See Memorandum of Plaintiffs in Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motions for Summary Judgment, at 8, 9 n.*, 19-20, 32-33, Record, vol. 11, entry no. 312 [hereinafter cited as “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum”]. Both in their brief and during oral argument on appeal appellants reiterated that they have given up their previous boycott claims. See Appellants’ Brief at 9, 21-22, 33-34. Nor do appellants contest the District Court’s specific findings that: (1) appellants had provided repair services to appellees’ policyholders throughout the period of this suit; (2) there was no evidence that appellees had ever attempted to prevent their insureds from dealing with appellants; and (3) there was no evidence in the record to support a claim of coercion or intimidation. See Appellants’ Brief at 21-22 (“The question of coercion or boycott is no longer an issue in this case.... [T]here is no need to argue either boycott or coercion.”). Arguably, appellants’ sole argument on appeal concerns the alleged horizontal price-fixing agreement. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 9 (“In determining the sufficiency of the defendants’ renewed motions, their conduct must be viewed only with respect to plaintiffs’ horizontal price fixing claim under the federal antitrust law.”); Appellants’ Brief at 22 (“The only remaining issue is whether there is credible evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that defendants combined to fix the prices they would pay to automobile body shops for the repair of automobiles for which they were insurers. It is the legality of such a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under the Federal antitrust laws which now must be determined in this case.”). Appellants have never argued that the vertical arrangements are themselves unlawful (i.e., independent of the alleged horizontal agreement), nor have theyv contested the District Court’s holding that the arrangements do not violate the antitrust laws. Appellants’ brief discusses at great length, however, the role the vertical arrangements played in implementing the horizontal price-fixing agreement. Consequently, appellants have preserved the argument that the vertical arrangements are unlawful because they were intended to implement an unlawful horizontal restraint of trade. Finally, appellants have never challenged the holding in the first District Court decision that the activities of the insurers in this case were sufficiently regulated by the laws of Virginia and Pennsylvania to satisfy the McCarran Act requirement of state regulation. See text accompanying notes 8-9 supra. That holding has been criticized, and, although we recognize that as a general matter a stricter interpretation of this McCarran Act requirement might be appropriate, that issue is simply not before us. In deciding the issues that remain on appeal, we bear in mind our limited role in reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although the moving party carries the burden of proof, United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420, 441 (D.C.Cir.1975), when a motion for summary judgment is made and properly supported under Rule 56, the opposing party must set forth specific facts and present evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue; the opposing party “may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (emphasis added); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2721, at 475 (1973). Summary judgment was intended to “eliminate^ useless trials by permitting a party ‘to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’ ” United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d at 441 (quoting Advisory Committee’s Note on Proposed Amendments to Rule 56, 31 F.R.D. 648 (1962)). Applying these standards at the appellate leyel, we must view the record and any inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the party who opposed summary judgment, and any doubts about the propriety of granting summary judgment must be resolved in that party’s favor. E.g., United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); see 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, § 2716, at 430-32. Our consideration is limited to those materials that were before the District Court. Id. § 2716, at 435. III. APPELLANTS’ CLAIM OF A HORIZONTAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE The heart of appellants’ case is their claim of a horizontal price-fixing agreement among appellees. We therefore first review the District Court’s holding that [t]he decision in Royal Drug does not reach or disturb the “core” ruling of the Court of Appeals that a horizontal agreement among insurers to pay insureds’ claims on the basis of the prevailing labor rate in accordance with a common formula, constituted the “business of insurance” within the McCarran-Ferguson Act and, even if proved, was therefore exempt from the anti-trust laws. Proctor II, [1980-81] Trade Cases (CCH) H 63,591, at 77,139. For the purpose of reviewing the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue, we assume the existence of the agreement as alleged by appellants. As discussed below, there is some uncertainty about how the Supreme Court would apply its interpretation of the “business of insurance” in Royal Drug to the facts of this case, and it is likely that the Court will soon reexamine that interpretation. Therefore, we also address a question not reached by the District Court: whether, assuming McCarran Act immunity is unavailable, and based on the evidence in the record, there is any genuine issue of material fact sufficient to enable appellants to withstand summary judgment on their antitrust claim pertaining to the alleged horizontal agreement. A. Whether the Alleged Horizontal Agreement Constitutes the “Business of Insurance” Under the McCarran Act To fall within the McCarran Act exemption, the horizontal agreement must constitute the “business of insurance” and be “regulated by State Law,” 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b) (1976), and must not constitute an “agreement to ... or [an] act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.” Id. § 1013(b). As noted above, appellants have abandoned their claim of boycott, coercion, or intimidation, and have never challenged the ruling that appellees’ practices are “regulated by State Law.” Accordingly, we address only the question whether the alleged horizontal agreement constitutes the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. 1. The Interpretation of the “Business of Insurance” After Royal Drug The Supreme Court in Royal Drug focused on two criteria in defining the “business of insurance”: (1) the spreading and underwriting of risk (seemingly as opposed to the mere reduction of risk), and (2) the relationship between insurer and insured. Courts and commentators have generally agreed that the articulation and application of these criteria in Royal Drug significantly narrowed the scope of the term “business of insurance.” There has been disagreement and confusion, however, about the nature and extent of Royal Drug’s restriction of the “business of insurance” exemption. The opinion in Royal Drug does not explain, for example, the relationship between the “risk-spreading” factor and the “between insurer and insured” factor, or the weight to be given each factor. Nor does it discuss the connection between these factors and the emphasis in the legislative history on exempting cooperative ratemaking and sharing of statistical data from antitrust attack. Some commentators have viewed the Court’s statements that the business of insurance involves the spreading and underwriting of risk — but not the mere reduction of risk — as the crux of the Royal Drug decision. They have recognized that, taken literally, this test would exclude from McCarran Act protection many activities traditionally thought to be the business of insurance; indeed, almost every practice outside of the basic insurance contract itself might be excluded. Other commentators have interpreted Royal Drug less restrictively, suggesting, for example, that claims adjusting and settlement, and horizontal agreements pertaining to claims settlement, also constitute the “business of insurance” under Royal Drug. More importantly, the federal courts attempting to apply Royal Drug have differed widely in their approaches to defining the “business of insurance” and in the results they have reached. The Second Circuit has offered probably the narrowest interpretation of the “business of insurance” under Royal Drug. In Pireno v. New York State Chiropractic Association, 650 F.2d 387 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. granted,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 595, 70 L.Ed.2d 587 (1981), the court considered an antitrust challenge to an insurer’s practice of submitting claims for chiropractic services to a review committee, composed of chiropractors, for a determination whether the services rendered and the fees charged are “reasonable” within the meaning of the insurance policy. Analyzing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Royal Drug, it concluded that, “under Royal Drug, the McCarran-Ferguson anti-trust exemption for ‘the business of insurance’ is to be strictly limited to only the quintessential insurance functions.” Id. at 392. Focusing on the underwriting and spreading of risk as the critical determinant of the “business of insurance,” the court stated that “an activity or procedure that does not either transfer risk from insured to insurer or spread the risk among insureds is not the business of insurance.” Id. at 393. Strictly applying this test, it concluded that the peer review process did neither and therefore was not the business of insurance Id. The court was unpersuaded by the argument that the peer review committee performed a traditional insurance “adjusting” function, suggesting that claims adjusting and settlement itself might not constitute the “business of insurance” under Royal Drug. Id. at 394-95. Examining the same peer review committee procedure in Bartholomew v. Virginia Chiropractors Association, Inc., 612 F.2d 812 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 938, 100 S.Ct. 2158, 64 L.Ed.2d 791 (1980), the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite result, holding that the procedure constituted the “business of insurance” under the McCarran Act. Its analysis of Royal Drug ignored the “risk-spreading” factor and focused instead on the fact that, in Royal Drug, the procuring of prescription drugs through the pharmacy agreements and the offering of insurance were “two segregated and disparate operations.” In Bartholomew, by contrast, there was “an integration of component acts resulting in a single, composite business-insurance.” Id. at 817. See also Ratino v. Medical Service, [1981-1] Trade Cases (CCH) 1164,144 (D.Md.1981) (following Bartholomew). The Fourth Circuit itself, however, has not been entirely consistent in its approach to interpreting Royal Drug. In Virginia Academy of Clinical Psychologists v. Blue Shield, 624 F.2d 476 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1360, 67 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981), the court held that the refusal of two Blue Shield plans to pay for services rendered by clinical psychologists unless they are billed through a physician did not constitute the “business of insurance” and hence was not immune from antitrust attack. The opinion by Judge Hall, who had dissented on the McCarran Act issue in Bartholomew, focused neither on risk-spreading nor on the integration of the challenged activity and the offering of insurance. Rather, the court stated that “[t]he essence of the business of insurance is the relationship between the insurance company and its policyholder.” Id. at 483. The court found that, as in Royal Drug, the challenged practice was “only tangential to that relationship in that it does not affect the benefit conferred upon the subscriber.” Id. at 483-84. In light of the divergent approaches taken by courts and commentators, we find it significant that, in antitrust actions brought by automobile body repair shops against insurance companies for allegedly conspiring to fix the price of automobile body repair work, two courts have opted to follow the approach taken by the District Court in its most recent opinion in Proctor. In Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 660 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1981), the Seventh Circuit held that a horizontal agreement between automobile insurance companies, virtually identical to the horizontal agreement challenged in this case, was the “business of insurance” because it was a wholly intra-industry agreement that involved claims procedures and because it was akin to cooperative ratemaking. Id. at 1201 & n.4. Accord, Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 615-16 n.7 (N.D.Cal. 1981). 2. Application of Royal Drug to the Facts of this Case We do not believe that Royal Drug clearly mandates a particular outcome on the horizontal claim in this case. Royal Drug did not directly address the question of what types of intra-industry agreements might constitute the “business of insurance,” and, as shown above, its analysis of what constitutes the “business of insurance” has been subject to widely varied interpretations. Despite a lack of clear guidance, after considering Royal Drug and applying it to the facts of this case, we conclude that the alleged horizontal agreement among the insurers should be regarded as the “business of insurance.” First, the holding in Royal Drug concerned vertical agreements between a single insurer and providers of goods and services other than insurance, and the Court’s, analysis was tailored to that type of agreement. Moreover, there are indications in the Court’s opinion that horizontal, wholly intra-industry agreements should be analyzed differently. For example, the Court emphasized that Congress’ primary concern in exempting the “business of insurance” from the antitrust laws was to protect cooperative ratemaking and joint collection and sharing of statistical data by insurance companies. Royal Drug, 440 U.S. at 221-24, 99 S.Ct. at 1078-79. In support of its position, the Court relied in part on a bill submitted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) prior to the passage of the McCarran Act. The Act that Congress adopted was largely patterned after the original NAIC bill. The Court pointed out that the NAIC bill “enumerated seven specific practices to which the Sherman Act was not to apply,” none of which involved contractual arrangements with providers of goods and services like the pharmacy agreements at issue in Royal Drug. Id. at 222, 99 S.Ct. at 1078. Rather, “[e]aeh of the specific practices involved intra-industry cooperative or concerted activities.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court also noted that Congress may have intended the “business of insurance” exemption to include transactions between an insurer and its agents. It sharply distinguished them from the provider agreements in Royal Drug, emphasizing that such transactions between insurers and agents “are wholly intra-industry.” Id. at 224-25 n.32, 99 S.Ct. at 1079-80 n.32. The dissent in Royal Drug, criticizing the majority’s rigid formulation of “the business of insurance,” stated that “the Court apparently concedes that arrangements among insurance companies respecting premiums and benefits would constitute the ‘business of insurance,’ despite their failure to fit within its formula.” Id. at 244, 99 S.Ct. at 1089 (Brennan, J., dissenting). The dissent concluded that “the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that numerous horizontal agreements between insurance companies which do not technically involve the underwriting of risk were regarded by Congress as within the scope of the Act’s exemption for the ‘business of insurance.’ ” Id. Finally, it is worth noting that the Solicitor General’s amicus curiae brief for the United States in Royal Drug specifically distinguished the horizontal agreement in Proctor from the agreements at issue in Royal Drug. It argued that the agreement in Proctor should be viewed as the “business of insurance” largely because it was a “wholly intra-insurance industry agreement[ ] concerning the extent to which particular claims would be paid.” Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 31, Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979), reprinted in Defendants’ Supp.App. 43. In light of the foregoing, we think it is fair to say that at least some horizontal agreements among insurers fall within the “business of insurance” exemption, and that the tests in Royal Drug for determining what constitutes the “business of insurance” are more easily satisfied by an intraindustry agreement than by a vertical agreement with an entity outside the insurance industry. Second, we believe that viewing the alleged horizontal agreement in this case as part of the “business of insurance” is consistent with Congress’ concern about exempting cooperative ratemaking and sharing of statistical data from the antitrust laws. The Court in Royal Drug found this concern prominent in the legislative history of the McCarran Act. It looked, for exam-pie, to the report accompanying the NAIC bill, which stressed the need to protect “combined efforts for statistical and rate-making purposes .... ” 440 U.S. at 221-22, 99 S.Ct. at 1078 (quoting 90 Cong.Rec. A4405 (1944) (emphasis added)). This report emphasized the need of small insurance companies and insurers other than life insurance companies for such protection. “In the life [insurance] companies the element of cost can be fixed with ... a high degree of mathematical certainty .... ” In other fields of insurance, risks and costs are less predictable. Sharing of statistical data and combined ratemaking efforts were regarded as especially important in these fields, in which “[t]he experience of individual companies is seldom a reliable guide for rate-making purposes.” 90 Cong.Rec. A4405 (1944). The Court also cited the floor debates on the McCarran Act and President Roosevelt’s remarks upon signing the Act, 440 U.S. at 223-24, 99 S.Ct. at 1079, and concluded that “[b]ecause of the widespread view that it is very difficult to underwrite risks in an informed and responsible way without intra-industry cooperation, the primary concern of both representatives of the insurance industry and the Congress was that cooperative rate-making efforts be exempt from the antitrust laws.” Id. at 221, 99 S.Ct. at 1078. Given this view of the legislative history and of the purpose of the Act, it seems clear that Congress intended the exemption to cover the sharing of data on the rate of past losses and other information on the probability that particular losses will occur. Risk probability is only one element of the ratemaking formula, however. Insurers must also factor in the magnitude of loss, i.e., the magnitude of the payments the insurer must make if the loss insured against occurs. See Owens v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 654 F.2d 218, 240 (3d Cir. 1981) (Sloviter, J., dissenting), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 657, 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). In the automobile liability insurance industry, the magnitude of loss includes the cost of repairing (or replacing) the damaged vehicle. The premiums charged by these insurers must directly reflect the cost of repair. We therefore do not believe that Congress, in protecting “cooperative ratemaking,” intended to allow concerted action in determining the rate of past losses of insurers and the probability of future losses, but not to allow similar combined efforts in determining how to calculate the expected magnitude of loss, i.e., the current cost of repair. In this case, insurers have allegedly collected and shared data on the cost of repair, labor costs in particular, and agreed on a prevailing hourly labor rate to be used in estimating damage claims. Such activity is closely akin to cooperative ratemaking since it involves a necessary part of the ratemaking process. See Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 616 n.7 (N.D.Cal.1981). We recognize, of course, that not everything that affects the level of premiums constitutes the “business of insurance.” In fact, the Supreme Court in Royal Drug expressed its concern that an “effect on rates” standard would impermissibly expand the “business of insurance” exemption in an unprincipled and uncontainable way: The Pharmacy Agreements are thus legally indistinguishable from countless other business arrangements that may be made by insurance companies to keep their costs low and thereby also keep low the level of premiums charged to their policyholders. . . . At the most, the petitioners have demonstrated that the Pharmacy Agreements result in cost savings to Blue Shield which may be reflected in lower premiums if the cost savings are passed on to policyholders. But, in that sense, every business decision made by an insurance company has some impact on its reliability, its ratemaking, and its status as a reliable insurer. Royal Drug, 440 U.S. at 215, 216-17, 99 S.Ct. at 1075-76. Such concerns, however, are not justified in the context of this case. We stress not that the cost of repair merely has an impact on premiums, but that it is directly related to the calculation of premiums; it is virtually a part of the ratemaking process. In short, we believe that the alleged horizontal agreement in this case is distinguishable from general cost-saving arrangements that are less directly related to the calculation of rates. We also recognize that the alleged agreement establishing a common formula for estimating claims strictly speaking may not involve the spreading or underwriting of risk. As noted above, however, Royal Drug does not make clear whether this is the exclusive or dispositive test for determining what constitutes the “business of insurance,” nor is it clear how the Court’s discussion of cooperative ratemaking relates to this test. See note 20 supra. We do not read Royal Drug as precluding us from at least considering the close relationship between the subject of the challenged agreement and the calculation of rates in determining whether the agreement falls within the “business of insurance.” We also take into account the fact that the alleged agreement pertains to the adjusting and settling of claims, a practice traditionally regarded as part of the insurance business. We respectfully disagree with the suggestion of the Second Circuit in Pireno that claims settlement should not be viewed as the “business of insurance” after Royal Drug. Pireno v. New York State Chiropractic Association, 650 F.2d 387, 394-95 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 595, 70 L.Ed.2d 587 (1981). As this Circuit stated in its earlier opinion in this case: “The determination by the insurance company of the amount to be paid in discharge of this contractual obligation is at the heart of the relationship between insurer and insured .... ” Proctor I, 561 F.2d at 267. Admittedly, the Supreme Court in Royal Drug found that the pharmacy agreements did not relate closely enough to the contract between insurer and insured to qualify as the “business of insurance.” Unlike the cost of repairing a damaged automobile, however, the price of prescription drugs is readily ascertainable without estimating a number of cost factors. While it may not be dispositive after Royal Drug, we think it is permissible, in deciding whether the alleged horizontal agreement constitutes the “business of insurance,” to consider the fact that an alleged horizontal agreement involves a complicated determination of the extent of the insurers’ liability to their insureds. Finally, we note that the other courts that have addressed this question have held that the type of horizontal agreement alleged in this case constitutes the “business of insurance.” Quality Auto Body v. Allstate Insurance Co., 660 F.2d 1195, 1201 & n.4 (7th Cir. 1981); Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 615-16 n.7 (N.D.Cal.1981); cf. Chick’s Auto Body v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 168 N.J.Super. 68, 401 A.2d 722 (Super.Ct.Law Div.1979), aff’d per curiam, 176 N.J.Super. 320, 423 A. 2d 311 (Super.Ct.App.Div.1980) (construing, prior to Royal Drug, state law antitrust exemption analogous to McCarran Act). B. Inadequacy of Evidentiary Support for Appellants’ Claim of a Horizontal Price-Fixing Agreement or Conspiracy Given the uncertainty in the state of the law concerning the “business of insurance” exemption, which the Supreme Court may soon resolve, we reach a second issue, not reached by the District Court: whether, assuming that the McCarran Act does not exempt the alleged horizontal agreement, appellees have demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of fact material to appellants’ price-fixing claim and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 1. Scope of Review by an Appellate Court The Supreme Court has noted that as a “general rule ... a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). Nonetheless, as the Court made clear, [t]he matter of what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the facts of individual cases. Id. at 121, 96 S.Ct. at 2877. Singleton “announce^] no general rule,” because the Court recognized that “[c]ertainly there are circumstances in which a federal appellate court is justified in resolving an issue not passed on below .... ” Id. Specifically, an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on a ground not relied upon by the lower court, provided “the opposing party [has had] a fair ‘opportunity to dispute the facts material’ to the new theory.” United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420, 441 (D.C.Cir.1975) (quoting Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 683, 69 S.Ct. 754, 755, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949)); accord, Rich v. United States Lines, Inc., 596 F.2d 541, 551 (3d Cir. 1979); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F.2d 674, 682 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2716, at 439^41 (1973). In this case, appellants not only have had a fair opportunity to dispute the contention that they have produced inadequate evidence on their horizontal price-fixing claim to withstand a motion for summary judgment, they have made this issue a major part of their presentation both to the District Court and to this court on appeal. The renewed motions for summary judgment filed by three of the appellees were based on' part on the argument that appellants had produced no evidence to support their claim. The major portion of appellants’ memorandum in opposition to the renewed motions for summary judgment was devoted to demonstrating that there was sufficient evidence in the record to withstand summary judgment on their horizontal claim. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 9-35. In addition, much of appellants’ brief on appeal is an effort to show that they have submitted adequate evidence of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy to defeat a motion for summary judgment on that issue. See Appellants’ Brief at 22-35. After arguing that the McCarran Act exemption does not apply to the activities they challenge, appellants explicitly state: The only remaining issue is whether there is credible evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that defendants combined to fix the prices they would pay to automobile body shops for the repair of automobiles for which they were insurers. It is the legality of such a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy under the Federal antitrust laws which now must be determined in this case. Neither the District Court nor the previous Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case has considered that issue. On the basis of documents alone, there is more than sufficient evidence to make this question a jury issue rather than one to be determined by summary procedures. In this case, there is ample evidence to prevent a summary disposition of plaintiffs’ claims. The facts presented and the inferences to be drawn therefrom with respect to the existence of an unlawful price fixing conspiracy must be resolved by a jury. Appellants’ Brief at 22, 35. Given appellants’ arguments below and on appeal, and bearing in mind that this case has been litigated for ten years, during which time appellants have engaged in extensive discovery, we think appellants have had a fair opportunity to contest, and have in fact contested, the assertion that they have presented inadequate evidence of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy to defeat a motion for summary judgment on that issue. By deciding this question on appeal, we are not depriving them of that opportunity or working any unfairness. See Grace v. Burger, 665 F.2d 1193, 1197 n.9 (D.C.Cir. 1981). 2. Basic Antitrust Principles Governing Appellants’ Claim On the merits of this question, we first set forth the basic antitrust principles that govern our consideration of appellants’ claim. Some type of concerted action is required to establish a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992 (1919). Appellants have alleged an agreement among appellees to fix prices. Although they purport to have offered direct evidence of such an agreement, we note that circumstantial evidence may be relied on to prove the existence of an agreement or conspiracy to fix prices. E.g., Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 L.Ed. 610 (1939); Weit v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 641 F.2d 457, 462 (7th Cir. 1981), petition for cert. filed, 50 U.S.L.W. 3023 (U.S. July 10, 1981) (No. 81-152). Parallel business behavior alone, however, is inadequate to create an inference of concerted action necessary to establish a Sherman Act violation. E.g., First National Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 279-80, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1587-88, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 541, 74 S.Ct. 257, 259, 98 L.Ed. 273 (1954); Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 663 F.2d 253, 267 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1293, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982); Weit v. Continental Illinois National Bank, 641 F.2d at 462-63; Independent Iron Works, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656, 661 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 922, 84 S.Ct. 267, 11 L.Ed.2d 165 (1963). Only when .the observed parallel behavior is inconsistent with the behavior to be expected from each actor individually pursuing its own economic interest may an agreement be inferred from the parallel conduct. E.g., Federal Prescription Service, 663 F.2d at 267; Admiral Theatre Corp. v. Douglas Theatre Co., 585 F.2d 877, 884 (8th Cir. 1978); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 446 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086, 98 S.Ct. 1280, 55 L.Ed.2d 791 (1978); Venzie Corp. v. United States Mineral Products Co., 521 F.2d 1309, 1314 (3d Cir. 1975); Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 617, 620-22 (N.D.Cal.1981); Turner, The Definition of Agreement Under the Sherman Act: Conscious Parallelism and Refusals to Deal, 75 Harv. L.Rev. 655, 657-59, 681 (1962). For example, evidence that appellees have, at times, used the same hourly labor rate in estimating damage claims, without more, does not demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy or agreement in violation of the Sherman Act. Quality Auto Body, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 660 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (7th Cir. 1981). 3. The Record Evidence in this Case We have examined all of the record evidence cited by appellants in support of their allegation of a horizontal price-fixing agreement or conspiracy. Having done this, we find that none of this evidence supports appellants’ allegation or creates any inference of conspiracy. We conclude that no rational jury could find from appellants’ evidence that appellees had conspired to fix the price of automobile body repair work and hold that it is inadequate to defeat a motion for summary judgment against appellants. (a) Evidence Cited in Appellants’ Brief on Appeal Appellants’ brief contains certain allegations which, if supported, might be sufficient to require a trial on the claim of a horizontal conspiracy or agreement by appellees. None of these allegations, however, is supported. For example, appellants state: “In approximately 1969, as the recently produced Liberty Mutual documents confirm, defendants engaged in a series of meetings in which they agreed to a common formula to be used in the adjusting and settling of automobile damage repair claims.” Appellants’ Brief at 28. The only document cited in support of this proposition, App. 191A, is a memorandum produced by appellee Liberty Mutual, which discusses a meeting between a representative of an insurance company, presumably Liberty Mutual, and the owners of several “referral” repair shops used by that company. Nothing in the document refers to any meetings between representatives of different insurance companies. Similarly, appellants state: “Defendants . . . creat[ed] the fiction of a ‘prevailing’ hourly rate in a given area and agree[d] among themselves to pay plaintiffs and others similarly situated an amount for the repair of an automobile computed at the fixed hourly rate.” Appellants’ Brief at 6. One of the documents cited to support this statement is an innocuous, handwritten note labelled “Nationwide Insurance Correspondence,” which makes no mention of hourly labor rates. App. 168A. The only other document cited is a Liberty Mutual memorandum discussing Travelers Indemnity Company’s use of “staff appraisers,” as opposed to “independent appraisers,” in handling automobile damage and homeowners claims. App. 293A-96A. Appellants cite a number of documents to support their contentions that appellees “fixed a common hourly rate ... at a particular dollar amount,” attempted to “present a uniform insurance industry front with regard to the imposition of a single ‘prevailing’ labor rate” and tried to force repair shops to operate at unprofitable rates. Appellants’ Brief at 29-30. The documents cited do not show any concerted activity by appellees. One document discusses Allstate’s efforts to resist a uniform increase in rates by an organization of local repair shops and the refusal of other insurance companies to similarly resist the rate increase. App. 126A-27A. The other two documents discuss Nationwide’s analysis of rate increases by local garages. One of them complains that Allstate had raised the hourly labor rate it used in writing damage estimates, making it more difficult for Nationwide to find shops willing to do work at a lower rate. Both documents conclude that Nationwide may have to raise slightly the rate it used in writing estimates. App. 136A-41A. If anything, these documents show that repair shops themselves initiated increases in their labor rates, to which certain appellees reluctantly, and independently, acceded. They certainly cannot create an inference of conspiracy between appellees Allstate and Nationwide. Appellants rely heavily upon a series of “Home Office Claims” memoranda released by Liberty Mutual in April 1980. These memoranda, written by E. A. Carr, an officer of Liberty Mutual, basically summarize information obtained in his interviews with representatives of insurance companies throughout the country concerning their methods and procedures for handling a variety of claims, including automobile damage claims. Based on this information, Mr. Carr recommended, and Liberty Mutual adopted, a claims-handling system different from those used by the other companies. Appellants contend that “virtually each” of these documents discusses “body shop hourly rates.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. In fact, none of the documents cited by appellants discusses rates charged for automobile repair work. App. 281A-315A. Appellants allege that “[t]he top level officers of each of the defendant companies engaged in a series of meetings to exchange information among themselves as to how ‘the industry’ should respond to the rising cost of payments to repair shops.” Id. at 25. The same documents are cited in support of this allegation, App. 281A-315A, i.e., Mr. Carr’s memoranda summarizing the claims-handling procedures used by eight insurance companies, including appellees, and one memorandum containing Mr. Carr’s conclusions and recommendations to Liberty Mutual about claims-handling procedures. None of the documents refers to any meetings between officers of appellees, other than their meetings with Mr. Carr. Nor do they contain any information about the prices charged by automobile repair shops or any suggestion of concerted action by appellees to impose a specified labor rate on repair shops. Many of the documents cited in appellants’ brief are cited to support statements about dealings between certain appellees and “referral” or “preferred” or “backup” repair shops. Appellants’ Brief at 26-27, 32-34. Our review of these documents reveals that they may be relevant to appellants’ claim concerning vertical restraints, but they contain no evidence that appellees conspired to fix the hourly labor rate or to use an agreed rate in writing damage estimates. At most, they show that individual appellees had arrangements with certain repair shops that agreed to do repair work at the rates used by appellees’ appraisers in exchange for appellees’ efforts to give them volume business. The cited documents do not show, or even suggest, that appellees based their damage estimates on a labor rate or formula that they had collectively agreed to use. Giving appellants the benefit of any inferences reasonably to be drawn from the documents, they suggest, at most, parallel business behavior which would be in the economic self-interest of each appellee. Any automobile insurance company concerned about its costs would benefit from establishing relationships with repair shops that agreed to do volume work at low rates. A price-fixing agreement therefore cannot reasonably be inferred from the existence of such vertical arrangements, especially when the alleged vertical arrangements varied in detail. Similarly, appellants refer to documents showing that certain appellees, specifically State Farm and Travelers, conducted surveys of the facilities and services offered and the rates charged by repair shops in particular geographic areas. See Appellants’ Brief at 31-32; App. 170A, 193A-280A. The documents contain no suggestion of collaboration in conducting the surveys (particularly since the Travelers’ document is dated October 9, 1968, while the State Farm survey documents are from 1973-74). Conducting a survey to determine the rates charged by repair shops is a logical way for an insurance company to determine the appropriate rate to use in estimating damage claims. Again, giving appellants the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from these documents, the fact that certain appellees conducted such surveys — five to six years apart — creates no inference that appellees conspired to fix the price of automobile repair work. See Workman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 520 F.Supp. 610, 621 (N.D.Cal.1981). (b) Evidence Cited by Appellants in Opposition to the Renewed Motions for Summary Judgment Below We have also carefully reviewed appellants’ memorandum to the District Court in opposition to the renewed motions for summary judgment and their accompanying statement of genuine issues for trial. See Plaintiffs’ Statement of Genuine Issues To Be Litigated, and Plaintif