Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, C17-1212RSL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190506d98
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: May 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . On March 25, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees. Costco sought recovery of the fees incurred in this coverage litigation, arguing that Arrowood's conduct had compelled it "to assume the burden of legal action[] to obtain the full benefit of [its] insurance contract" under Olympic S.S. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wn.2d 37 , 53 (1991). Fully cognizant of the documents cited and arg
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . On March 25, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees. Costco sought recovery of the fees incurred in this coverage litigation, arguing that Arrowood's conduct had compelled it "to assume the burden of legal action[] to obtain the full benefit of [its] insurance contract" under Olympic S.S. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wn.2d 37 , 53 (1991). Fully cognizant of the documents cited and argu..
More
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
On March 25, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees. Costco sought recovery of the fees incurred in this coverage litigation, arguing that Arrowood's conduct had compelled it "to assume the burden of legal action[] to obtain the full benefit of [its] insurance contract" under Olympic S.S. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wn.2d 37, 53 (1991). Fully cognizant of the documents cited and arguments raised in the pending motion for reconsideration, the Court disagreed with Costco's assessment, noting that "[w]hether a party is entitled to an award of fees under Olympic Steamship is a question of law" and concluding that "Costco sued to obtain a declaration of coverage, but it was not compelled to do so by Arrowood's conduct." Dkt. # 126 at 21-22. Because the equitable considerations that drove the Olympic Steamship decision did not favor an award of fees in the circumstances presented here, plaintiff's request was denied.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a "showing of manifest error in the prior ruling" or "new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LCR Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met its burden. The motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 128) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
