Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-11-2002 Intermetals Corp v. Hanover Intl Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-3322 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Intermetals Corp v. Hanover Intl" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 346. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/346 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 01-3322 INTERMETALS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT FUR INDUSTRIEVERSICHERUNGEN ___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00200) District Judge: The Honorable Mary Little Cooper ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 7, 2002 BEFORE: NYGAARD, BARRY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 11, 2002) ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Appellant, Intermetals Corporation, appeals from an order of the District Court which dismissed the action. Appellant alleges as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from their brief. Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm. I. The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows: 1. Did the District Court err in construing the language of the forum selection clause to be exclusive, mandatory, and thus enforceable? 2. Did the District Court err in finding that the forum selection clause was part of the contract of insurance?  II. The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we write an opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented here. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.2. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not- precedential opinion and judgment, we "briefly set[] forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision...." I.O.P. 5.4. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge Cooper of the District Court. Judge Cooper’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 2nd day of August, 2001, we will affirm. III. In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dated August 2, 2001. _________________________ TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing opinion. /s/ Richard L. Nygaard Circuit Judge THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 01-3322 ___________ INTERMETALS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. HANOVER INTERNATIONAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT FUR INDUSTRIEVERSICHERUNGEN ___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00200) District Judge: The Honorable Mary Little Cooper ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 7, 2002 BEFORE: NYGAARD, BARRY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges. ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 7, 2002. On consideration whereof, it is now here ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the order of the said District Court entered on August 2, 2001, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against appellant All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. ATTEST: _________________________________ Clerk Dated: 11 June 2002