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)

Download PDF
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there is 12 no resulting liability the duty to indemnify does not materialize. 13 14 1 15 Trucking Leasing Co., an unpublished case.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?