Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc. et al

Filing 428

ORDER AND REASONS denying 415 Motion for Reconsideration re 347 Order on 242 Motion for Summary Judgment Finding No Duty to Defend Masse or Allied in the Underlying Adams Lawsuit. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/8/2016. (Reference: all cases)(cg) (Main Document 428 replaced on 12/8/2016 to correct footnote 1) (tsf).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 11-2375 c/w 14-1930
14-1933, 16-2490

SUPERIOR LABOR SERVICES,
INC., ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: All Cases
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court

is Masse

Contracting,

Inc.’s (“Masse”)

motion for

reconsideration. 1 The motion is opposed. 2 On December 1, 2015, State National Insurance
Company (“State National”) filed four motions for summary judgment, seeking a
determination that it does not owe a defense to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as
an additional insured in the Adams and St. Pierre lawsuits. 3 On April 8, 2016, the Court
denied two of these motions—those seeking a judgment that State National owed no
defense to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as an additional insured in the St.
Pierre lawsuit. 4 The Court granted the other two motions—those seeking a judgment that
State National owed no duty to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as an additional
insured in the Adams lawsuit. 5 In Masse’s motion, it asks the Court to reconsider two of
its rulings under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

R. Doc. 415. Superior Labor Services, Inc. joins in Masse’s motion. R. Doc. 423.
R. Doc. 424.
3 R. Docs. 242, 243, 244, 245.
4 R. Doc. 347.
5 R. Doc. 347.
1

2

1

Although Masse brings its motion under Rule 59(e), Masse filed its motion for
reconsideration more than 28 days from the entry of the Court’s order. 6 Therefore, the
Court will consider the motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides
that a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” may “relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 7
The purpose of Rule 60(b) “is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment with
the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.”8 As the
moving party, Masse has the burden to show why the Court should vacate the Court’s
prior judgment. 9 The determination of whether Masse has satisfied its burden lies within
this Court’s sound discretion. 10
Granting relief under Rule 60 is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” 11 Consequently, the “scope of relief that may be obtained under Rule 60(b) is
strictly limited.” 12 A motion to vacate a judgment is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e).
7 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).
8 Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).
9 See League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 438 (5th Cir. 2011).
10 Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010).
11 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Pease v. Pakhoed, 980 F.2d 995,
998 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Courts are disinclined to disturb judgments under the aegis of Rule 60(b).”).
12 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.02 (3d ed. 2010).
6

2

evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment.” 13
Masse argues there is new evidence to consider in determining whether State
National owes a duty to defend Masse and Superior as insureds and Allied as an additional
insured. 14 This new evidence, Masse argues, is the sixth amended petition filed by the
Adams plaintiffs on May 6, 2016. 15 In the Court’s ruling on State National’s motions for
summary judgment, it considered the Adams plaintiffs’ third amended petition, which
was the latest amended pleading at the time the Order was issued. 16
To warrant the granting of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(2),
Masse must show that the “newly discovered evidence”—the sixth amended petition—
could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b). 17 The Court’s order was issued on April 8, 2016. 18 The Adams plaintiffs
filed the sixth amended petition on May 6, 2016—28 days later. 19 The time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b) is 28 days after the entry of judgment. 20 Therefore, the “newly
discovered evidence” could have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).
Even if Masse were not faced with this obstacle, the Court would still find there is
no reason to grant relief under Rule 60(b). Masse is correct that “[t]he duty to defend is
determined by consulting the latest amended pleading.” 21 The Court did just that—it

Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
R. Doc. 415-1 at 1.
15 R. Doc. 415-2 at 19.
16 R. Doc. 347.
17 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2).
18 R. Doc. 347.
19 R. Doc. 415-2 at 19.
20 FED. R. CIV. P. 59(b).
21 R. Doc. 415-1 (citing Northfield Ins. Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2004)).
13

14

3

considered the third amended petition, which was the latest amended pleading filed at
the time of the Court’s ruling. 22 Masse argues “when a petition is amended, the duty-todefend analysis must be performed again to determine whether the amended petition
alleges liability that is potentially within the scope of insurance coverage.” 23 The Court
does not disagree, and if another motion for summary judgment motion is filed before the
Court with respect to State National’s duty to defend in the Adams lawsuit, the Court will
consider the latest amended pleading—currently, the sixth amended petition. The
possibility of the Court considering the question of State National’s duty to defend in the
future, however, does not mean that its prior ruling was in error or should be disturbed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Masse’s motion 24 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of December, 2016.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 The Court’s ruling was issued on April 8, 2016. The sixth amended petition was not filed until May 6,
2016.
23 R. Doc. 415-1 at 3–4 (citing Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co., 146 So. 3d 210 (La Ct. App. 1 Cir.
3/24/14)).
24 R. Doc. 415.

4