AGRR Magazine



On July 31, 2006, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Honorable James Munley presiding, issued an order granting in part and denying in part both parties' motions for summary judgment in the action brought by Diamond Glass Companies against Safelite Group, Inc. The summary judgment motions argued on June 1 did not dispose of this dispute.

The court dismissed three of Diamond's claims relating to Safelite's alleged violation of the federal Lanham Act, Safelite's alleged violation of various state unfair trade practices acts and Safelite's alleged breach of the parties' network participation agreement. It did not, however, dismiss the entirety of Diamond's claims.

Chuck Lloyd, the attorney for Diamond, stated "The court has ruled that Diamond may proceed to trial on its claims that Safelite disparaged Diamond to Diamond's customers and that Safelite has wrongfully interfered with Diamond's relationship with its customers and prospective customers. The court also ruled that Diamond is entitled to seek lost profits as its damages for those claims. We believe that a jury will ultimately agree that Safelite violated Diamond's rights and that Diamond is entitled to compensation."

With respect to those claims that the court dismissed, Lloyd stated: "There are various options available to us and we are examining those options at this time. Upon review of the court's order, we strongly believe that, when given the opportunity to do so, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will reverse the trial court and reinstate those claims that have been dismissed."

No reproduction, in print, electronic or any form without the expressed written permission of
Key Communications Inc. 540-720-5584.