Reliance Insurance v. Doctors' Co.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. (Haw. 2015)
- Kowalski v. Anova Food, LLC (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2013)
- Johnson v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
1. The district court did not err in dismissing TDC’s counterclaim of setoff on abstention principles under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). See City of Tucson v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 284 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002).
2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Reliance on its claim for subrogation. The Straub Clinic and Drs. Kubota and Pearce, as parties to the settlement, were “legally obligated to pay” the settlement amount as “damages” within the meaning of the TDC policy; and by settling, TDC could not overcome the presumption of equal fault established by Hawaii law. See Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 663-12, -17.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying TDC’s motion for reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); see also Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 253 (9th Cir. 1995).
4. Reliance’s Motion for Judicial Notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evidence 201.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.