KnightBrook Insurance Company et al v. Payless Car Rental System Inc et al
ORDER denying 150 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/11/2013.(DGC, nvo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
KnightBrook Insurance Co., et al.,
Payless Car Rental System, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs KnightBrook Insurance Company and Knight Management Insurances
Services, L.L.C. have filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 150. The motion concerns
the Court’s previous ruling that permitted Defendants to amend their answer and assert
counterclaims. Doc. 141. Plaintiffs allege that “[s]everal statements in the [Court’s]
Order contain misapprehensions of substantive Arizona insurance law and the terms of
the commercial auto policy issued by KnightBrook Insurance Company to PCR
Venture.” Id. at 1. The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
Plaintiffs assert that “the Court has overlooked an important aspect of Arizona
insurance law: an insured must have made a claim before it can assert a cause of action
for bad faith against its insurer.”
opposition to Defendants’ motion for leave to amend.
should not be used to restate arguments previously made or to ask the Court to rethink its
analysis. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing
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
The Court does not find Plaintiffs’ new variation of their argument – that bad faith arises
only after a claim has been filed – to be substantially different from the argument they
made previously. The Court rejects this argument for the reasons stated in its order.
Doc. 141. Whether Defendants can succeed in asserting a bad faith claim on the facts of
this case will be decided at summary judgment or trial.
Plaintiffs take issue with a statement in the Court’s order that “it appears that
Defendants were covered even in their role as agents by Plaintiffs’ insurance policy.”
Doc. 141 at 7. By stating what “appears” to be the case, the Court was simply providing
additional support for its conclusion. The statement was not intended, and is not, a
definitive ruling in this case on whether Defendants were covered by the policy.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Court incorrectly cited Plaintiffs’ brief for the
proposition that “no [fiduciary] duties arise in the principal-agent context.” Doc. 150 at
8. Read in context, the Court was referring to Plaintiffs’ argument that they did not owe
fiduciary duties to Defendants, not to any admission that Defendants did not owe
fiduciary duties to them. The Court specifically stated, in any event, that it cannot
address the breach of fiduciary duty issues until a more complete factual record has been
arguments in support of their claims in this case.
Doc. 141 at 7.
The Court has not foreclosed Plaintiffs from making
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 150) is
Dated this 11th day of December, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?