Industrial Indemnity Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Florists' Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant

73 F.3d 369 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. FLORISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. No. 94-15988. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 1995. Decided Dec. 22, 1995. 1 Before: GOODWIN and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Industrial Indemnity Company filed this declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking a declaration that as an excess insurer it has no legal obligation to contribute to a settlement negotiated by its insured's primary carrier, Florists' Mutual Insurance Company. The district court granted Industrial's motion for summary judgment. Florists' appeals the district court's failure to abstain, its grant of summary judgment and entry of judgment in favor of Industrial, and its denial of Florists' motion for reconsideration. ABSTENTION 4 Industrial brought…