Did The Tenth Circuit Court fail to follow stare decisis by failing to follow its own ruling in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) and affirming the District Court's grant of Philadelphia Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.?

Does the Tenth Circuit's failure to follow stare decisis sufficiently endanger the principles requiring federal courts to follow state law in diversity of citizenship cases, as required by Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) to justify this Court exercising its superintending jurisdiction by correcting the Tenth Circuit's ruling?

Did the Tenth Circuit Court fail to follow stare decisis by failing to follow its own ruling in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) and affirming the District Court's grant of Philadelphia Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment?