Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Hansen Homes of South Florida, Inc.

Filing 47

OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/29/2015. (MAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MID-CONTINENT
COMPANY,
a
corporation,

CASUALTY
foreign

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-35-FtM-29CM

HANSEN
HOMES
FLORIDA, INC.,
corporation,

OF
SOUTH
a Florida

Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. #42) filed on February 16, 2015.
filed a Response (Doc. #44) on March 5, 2015.

Plaintiff

For the reasons set

forth below, the motion is denied.
I.
This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Mid-Continent
Casualty Company (Mid-Continent) and Defendant Hansen Homes of
South Florida, Inc. (Hansen) regarding the proper interpretation
of insurance policies.

Between 2005 and 2009, Hansen installed

Chinese drywall in homes it built in Cape Coral, Florida.

After

the homes were completed, the homeowners sued Hansen for injuries
that occurred as a result of the Chinese drywall.
time

period,

Hansen

purchased

four

insurance

During the same
policies

(the

Policies) from Mid-Continent.

Pursuant to the Policies, Mid-

Continent defended the Chinese drywall claims on behalf of Hansen.
Mid-Continent settled a portion of the claims in November 2011.
The

remaining

federal

claims

were

multidistrict litigation proceeding.

consolidated

into

a

On March 15, 2013, the judge

presiding over the multidistrict litigation approved a settlement
(the MDL Settlement) of the consolidated claims.

In total, Mid-

Continent paid in excess of $1.3 million to settle the Chinese
drywall cases brought against Hansen.
Mid-Continent then sought to recoup from Hansen deductible
payments for the settled claims.
deductibles and refused to pay.

Hansen disagreed that it owed
As a result, Mid-Continent filed

suit alleging that Hansen is in breach of the Policies.

Mid-

Continent

owes

seeks

(1)

a

declaratory

judgment

that

Hansen

deductible payments; and (2) damages for Hansen’s alleged breach
of contract.

In response, Hansen brought a counterclaim seeking

a declaratory judgment that no deductibles are owed.
On February 6, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
(Doc. #39) (the Order) granting Mid-Continent’s motion for partial
summary judgment.

In that Order, the Court held that the claims

resolved by the MDL Settlement must be analyzed independently to
determine whether Hansen must pay a deductible.

Accordingly, the

Court concluded that if an individual MDL Plaintiff was awarded
compensation

via

the

MDL

Settlement’s

- 2 -

Repair

and

Relocation

Damages pool, Hansen owed a deductible.

If an MDL Plaintiff was

awarded compensation via the MDL Settlement’s Bodily Injury Pool,
or via both the Repair and Relocation Damages pool and the Bodily
Injury Pool, the Court concluded that no deductible is owed.
Hansen now moves for reconsideration of the Order.
II.
“Reconsideration

of

a

court’s

previous

order

is

an

extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used
sparingly.”

American Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood,

278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Taylor Woodrow
Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072,
1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)).
raise

new

previously.”

issues,

not

“A motion for reconsideration should
merely

readdress

issues

litigated

PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil

Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).

Courts have

“delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; [and] (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”

Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153

F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

Unless the movant’s arguments

fall into one of these categories, the motion must be denied.
The motion to reconsider must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason
to reverse its prior decision.

Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at

- 3 -

1073; PaineWebber, 902 F. Supp. at 1521.

“When issues have been

carefully considered and decisions rendered, the only reason which
should commend reconsideration of that decision is a change in the
factual or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based.”
Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1072–73.
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity
to simply reargue—or argue for the first time—an issue the Court
has once determined.
first

drafts,

Court opinions “are not intended as mere

subject

litigant’s pleasure.”

to

revision

and

reconsideration

at

a

Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus.,

Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

“The burden is upon

the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting
reconsideration.”

Mannings v. Sch. Bd., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D.

Fla. 1993)
III.
Hansen argues that reconsideration is necessary because the
Court misinterpreted the Policies and misapplied the Policies to
the MDL Settlement.

In support, Hansen does not cite to any new

evidence or intervening change in case law.

Instead, Hansen

simply quotes the relevant policy language and discusses the
mechanics of the MDL Settlement in an attempt to demonstrate that
its interpretation of the Policies is the correct one.

Thus, the

“clear error” alleged by Hansen is merely the Court’s refusal to
adopt its proffered interpretation of the Policies.

- 4 -

The parties’

have thoroughly briefed their competing interpretations of the
Policies, and the Court carefully considered those argument prior
to issuing the Order.

As such, Hansen’s motion “fails to raise

new issues and, instead, only relitigates what has already been
found lacking.”

Lamar Adver., Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D.

480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).

Therefore, Hansen has failed to

articulate sufficient grounds for reconsideration, and its motion
will be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #42) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of April, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 5 -

29th

day