Ac Circuit Breakers, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

28 F.3d 104 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. AC CIRCUIT BREAKERS, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 92-56156, 92-56261 and 92-56295. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1994. Decided June 8, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and FONG, District Judge ** . 2 MEMORANDUM ** INTRODUCTION 3 This case raises the question whether the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee AC Circuit Breakers, Inc. ("AC") and denying Appellants Hartford Fire Insurance Company's ("Hartford") and Employers Casualty Company's ("Employers") motions for summary judgment. Since the time of the district court's decision, the California Supreme Court has decided Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254 , 833 P.2d 545 , 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538 (1992), which compels us to reverse. BACKGROUND 4 The central issue in…