KnightBrook Insurance Company et al v. Payless Car Rental System Inc et al

Filing 153

ORDER denying 150 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/11/2013.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

KnightBrook Insurance Co., et al.,

No. CV12-01671-PHX-DGC

Plaintiffs,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Payless Car Rental System, Inc., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiffs KnightBrook Insurance Company and Knight Management Insurances

16

Services, L.L.C. have filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 150. The motion concerns

17

the Court’s previous ruling that permitted Defendants to amend their answer and assert

18

counterclaims. Doc. 141. Plaintiffs allege that “[s]everal statements in the [Court’s]

19

Order contain misapprehensions of substantive Arizona insurance law and the terms of

20

the commercial auto policy issued by KnightBrook Insurance Company to PCR

21

Venture.” Id. at 1. The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.

22

Plaintiffs assert that “the Court has overlooked an important aspect of Arizona

23

insurance law: an insured must have made a claim before it can assert a cause of action

24

for bad faith against its insurer.”

25

opposition to Defendants’ motion for leave to amend.

26

should not be used to restate arguments previously made or to ask the Court to rethink its

27

analysis. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing

28

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E. D. Va. 1983)).

Id. at 2.

Plaintiffs made this argument in their
Motions for reconsideration

1

The Court does not find Plaintiffs’ new variation of their argument – that bad faith arises

2

only after a claim has been filed – to be substantially different from the argument they

3

made previously. The Court rejects this argument for the reasons stated in its order.

4

Doc. 141. Whether Defendants can succeed in asserting a bad faith claim on the facts of

5

this case will be decided at summary judgment or trial.

6

Plaintiffs take issue with a statement in the Court’s order that “it appears that

7

Defendants were covered even in their role as agents by Plaintiffs’ insurance policy.”

8

Doc. 141 at 7. By stating what “appears” to be the case, the Court was simply providing

9

additional support for its conclusion. The statement was not intended, and is not, a

10

definitive ruling in this case on whether Defendants were covered by the policy.

11

Plaintiffs also argue that the Court incorrectly cited Plaintiffs’ brief for the

12

proposition that “no [fiduciary] duties arise in the principal-agent context.” Doc. 150 at

13

8. Read in context, the Court was referring to Plaintiffs’ argument that they did not owe

14

fiduciary duties to Defendants, not to any admission that Defendants did not owe

15

fiduciary duties to them. The Court specifically stated, in any event, that it cannot

16

address the breach of fiduciary duty issues until a more complete factual record has been

17

developed.

18

arguments in support of their claims in this case.

19
20
21

Doc. 141 at 7.

The Court has not foreclosed Plaintiffs from making

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 150) is
denied.
Dated this 11th day of December, 2013.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-