PAR Electrical Contractors Inc et al v. BlueLine Rental LLC et al
Filing
54
ORDER DENYING OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Old Republics Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 25 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
8
PAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS,
INC. and OLD REPUBLIC
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
NO: 2:16-CV-0246-TOR
ORDER DENYING OLD REPUBLIC
INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
BLUELINE RENTAL LLC;
PLATINUM EQUITY, LLC; and
SANDRA HOYE, as Personal
Representative for the Estate of Conor
J. Finnerty, and for C.F., a Minor and
M.F., a Minor,
14
Defendants.
15
16
BEFORE THE COURT is Old Republic Insurance Company’s Motion for
17
Reconsideration (ECF No. 51). The Court has reviewed the record and files herein,
18
and is fully informed. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) is DENIED,
19
as Old Republic’s request simply rehashes arguments that were fully considered.
20
Compare ECF No. 51 with ECF No. 47.
ORDER DENYING OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1
1
DISCUSSION
2
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
3
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
4
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the
5
controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.
6
1999) (citation omitted). There is no newly discovered evidence or change in law.
7
Old Republic has not stated how the Court committed clear error. ECF No. 51.
8
Old Republic merely complains about the result and attempts to re-litigate the
9
issues this Court already decided after thorough analysis.1 Compare ECF No. 51
10
with ECF No. 47. Old Republic’s concern that the Court should wait to determine
11
whether Old Republic has a duty to indemnify until a verdict is illusory—if there is
12
no resulting liability the duty to indemnify does not materialize.
13
14
1
15
Trucking Leasing Co., an unpublished case. ECF No. 51 at 2. The Ritter case does
16
not even directly address the issue—rather, it focuses on a lack of an allegation in
17
the underlying complaint and reasonable expectations—and its conclusion that the
18
policy was limited to negligence was not explained or supported, contrary to the
19
cases this Court references in its Order (ECF NO. 47). Ritter v. Penske Trucking
20
Leasing Co., L.P., 2012 WL 6049186, at 4-6 (Wisc. App. 2012).
Old Republic complains that this Court did not follow Ritter v. Penske
ORDER DENYING OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2
1
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
Old Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.
3
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and
4
5
provide copies to counsel.
DATED March 17, 2017.
6
7
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?