Hartford Fire Insurance v. Wasser High-tech Coatings Inc.

Good Law
44 F. App'x 219
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 2002No. 01-35325; D.C. No. CV-98-01623-JETCalifornia1,414 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Wasser High Tech Coatings, Inc. (‘Was-ser”) appeals the district court’s order granting declaratory judgment in favor of Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”). Specifically, Wasser argues that Judge Tanner erred in setting aside a prior entry of partial summary judgment by Judge Coughenour for Wasser on the issue of property damage, that the district court erred in holding that Hartford did not act in bad faith in processing Wasser’s claim, and that Wasser is entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred in an attempt to enforce its rights under the insurance policy. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

Judges sitting on the same court should not attempt to overrule the decisions of each other unless “cogent reasons” or “exceptional circumstances” appear. Castner v. First Nat’l Bank, 278 F.2d 376, 380-81 (9th Cir.1960). “The prior decision should be followed unless: (1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially *221 different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial.” Delta Savings Bank v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.