Mutual Real Estate Holdings, LLC d/b/a Re/Max Elite v. Houston Casualty Company et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mutual Real Estate Holdings,
LLC, d/b/a RE/MAX Elite
v.

Civil No. 10-cv-236-LM

Houston Casualty Company

O R D E R
Before the court is a motion for reconsideration filed by
Mutual Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Mutual”).
Company (“Houston”) objects.

Houston Casualty

Mutual’s motion is denied.

According to Mutual, the court committed a manifest error
of law by failing to consider two cases on which it relied,
Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, P.A. v. Home Insurance Co.,
143 N.H. 35 (1998), and Bianco Professional Association v. Home
Insurance Co., 144 N.H. 288 (1999).

Mutual is mistaken.

The

court did not discuss those cases in its previous order because
they are not relevant to any issue in this case.
In Shaheen, the question was whether an insured had met its
obligation under a notice-of-claim provision to provide written
notice to its insurer “of any act or omission which would
reasonably be expected to be the basis of a claim or suit
covered hereby.”

143 N.H. at 39 (emphasis omitted).

The New

Hampshire Supreme Court held the policy in Shaheen to be
ambiguous and construed it in favor of the insured.

See id. at

41.
Here, the court was not faced with any issue concerning
Mutual’s duty to report to Houston or the reasonableness of
Mutual’s beliefs about the likelihood that an act or omission
might ripen into a covered claim or suit.

Rather, the question

before this court was whether the Desrosiers’ July 8, 2009,
letter was a “claim,” as that term is defined in the insurance
policy Houston issued to Mutual.

Neither Shaheen nor Bianco

offers any guidance on how to construe the term “claim.”

And,

those cases do not stand for the proposition that Attorney St.
George’s assessment of the merits of the Desrosiers’ position
has any relevance to determining whether or not their letter was
a “claim.”

Hence, the court did not discuss Shaheen or Bianco

in its previous order.
Because Shaheen and Bianco have no bearing on the question
of law posed by Houston’s summary judgment motion, it was no
error, much less a manifest error of law, to leave those cases
out of the order granting summary judgment to Houston.

2

Accordingly, Mutual’s motion for reconsideration, document no.
53, is denied.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
October 12, 2011
cc:

Christopher H.M. Carter, Esq.
Sarah A. Kutner, Esq.
Aidan M. McCormack, Esq.
Mark D. Morrissette, Esq.
Danielle L. Pacik, Esq.
Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

3