Westfield Insurance Company v. Centra, Inc.

Filing 72

ORDER Denying #70 Motion for Reconsideration re #68 and #69 , by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/30/2419.(jsmit)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02419-RPM
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Westfield Insurance Company has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) for the Court to reconsider its October 3, 2014 Order granting Defendant
Jacobs Engineering Group’s Motion to Dismiss.

[Doc. 70.]

Westfield contends that

reconsideration is warranted because the Court wrongly assumed that Hensel Phelps repaired
the roof voluntarily, and “the cases cited in Westfield’s Response . . . provide authority for
the proposition that a contractor who completes a project upon demand by the project owner
is subrogated to the project owner’s right and claims against third parties.” [Id. at 3.]
Assuming Hensel Phelps made the necessary repairs upon the Colorado Air National
Guard’s demand, none of the cases cited in Westfield’s Response establish that the doctrine
of equitable subrogation extends to this type of situation. The case Westfield principally
relies on, Bainbridge, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Co. of Conn., 159 P.3d 748, 752 (Colo. App.
2006), presented the question of whether current homeowners could acquire through
equitable subrogation a previous homeowner’s liability claim. The other cases Westfield

cites involved the typical equitable subrogation circumstance, in which a surety agreement
existed with a surety guaranteeing the performance of its principal on a contract with a
project owner; the surety, upon completing the project after the principal defaulted, was
deemed equitably subrogated to the project owner’s project-related rights against the
principal and third parties. See Lyndon Prop. Ins. Co. v. Duke Levy & Associates, LLC, 475
F.3d 268, 270–71 (5th Cir. 2007); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. R.L. Brown & Assocs., Inc., No.
04-CV-3537, 2006 WL 2842733 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2006) Peerless Ins. Co. v. Cerny &
Assocs., Inc., 199 F. Supp. 951, 954 (D. Minn. 1961); Unity Tel. Co. v. Design Serv. Co.,
201 A.2d 177 (Me. 1964); Acuity, A Mutual Ins. Co. v. McGhee Eng’g, 297 S.W.3d 718
(Tenn. App. 2008). The facts of those cases do not fit here, and their reasoning does not
warrant extending equitable subrogation as Westfield contends.
Westfield’s Motion for Reconsideration does not add anything new to the Court’s
analysis. Perceiving no basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order and
Judgment Dismissing Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. [Doc. 70] is denied.
Dated:

October 30, 2014
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch

_____________________
Richard P. Matsch
Senior Judge

2