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Trucking Leasing Co., an unpublished case.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