GIACOBBE et al v. QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
89
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 8/28/2018. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LORRAINE GIACOBBE and JOANNE
WAKEFIELD,
No. 1:14-cv-6387 (NLH/KMW)
OPINION
Plaintiffs,
v.
QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
RICHARD J. GUSS
MARTIN L. MAYO
ANDREW W. MILLER
DIFRANCESCO BATEMAN COLEY YOSPIN KUNZMAN DAVIS & LEHRER
15 MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
WARREN, NJ 07059-6327
On behalf of Plaintiffs
CHRISTIAN ANDREW CAVALLO
RONALD D. PUHALA
DAVIS J. KIM
GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP
902 CARNEGIE CENTER
SUITE 100
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
On behalf of Defendant
CHRISTIAN A. CAVALLO
PATRICK J. MULQUEEN
CHRISTOPHER RYAN WEISS
GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP
1037 RAYMOND BLVD.
SUITE 1010
NEWARK, NJ 07102
On behalf of Defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
This is a breach of contract action involving payment under
a homeowner’s insurance policy following damage to Plaintiffs
Lorraine Giacobbe and Joanne Wakefield’s property after
Superstorm Sandy.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendant QBE Specialty Insurance
Company.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the
Motion for Reconsideration.
I.
Plaintiffs are the owners of property located at 25 Pilot
Road in Toms River, New Jersey.
Defendant issued Plaintiffs a
homeowner’s insurance policy, which provided coverage for wind
damage (“the Policy”).
Following damage to the property from
Superstorm Sandy, Defendant’s adjusting company determined that
the insured loss was $3,893.98.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with this Court on October
15, 2014 bringing four counts against Defendant.
Following a
Partial Stipulation of Dismissal, only the breach of contract
claim remained.
On May 8, 2018, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendant.
On May 21, 2018, Plaintiffs
moved for reconsideration of that decision. 1
1
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
2
II.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.”
Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A judgment may be
altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration
shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court rendered its decision; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Id.
“A decision suffers from ‘clear error’ only if the record
cannot support the findings that led to that ruling.”
Bond v.
Ingersoll-Rand Co., No. 08-3487, 2010 WL 5139857, at *4 (D.N.J.
Dec. 10, 2010) (quoting United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591,
603-04 (3d Cir. 2008)).
“Thus, a party must do more than allege
that portions of a ruling were erroneous in order to obtain
reconsideration of that ruling; it must demonstrate that (1) the
holdings on which it bases its request were without support in
the record, or (2) would result in ‘manifest injustice’ if not
addressed.”
Id. (quoting Grape, 549 F.3d at 603-04; N. River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)).
“In this context, the term ‘manifest injustice’ ‘means
that the Court overlooked some dispositive factual or legal
matter that was presented to it.’”
3
Barton v. Mid-Atl. Flooring
Ventures Inc., No. 13-4592, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4648, at *14
(D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2017) (quoting Rose v. Alt. Ins. Works, LLC,
No. 06-1818, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64622, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 31,
2007)).
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate
old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised
before the original decision was reached.
P. Schoenfeld Asset
Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J.
2001).
Mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to
show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling
law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339,
345 (D.N.J. 1999), and should be dealt with through the normal
appellate process, S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of
Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003).
III.
The Court’s May 2018 Opinion found that the Policy clearly
and unambiguously allowed for recovery of only the actual cash
value under the circumstances of the case, as opposed to
replacement value, as Plaintiffs argued:
The Court does not find any ambiguity in the policy
language. It is clear to the Court based on the language
of the Policy quoted above that Plaintiffs’ insured
losses are limited to actual cash value prior to the
completion of any repairs. Under the plain terms of the
Policy, only after repairs are completed do the
replacement cost procedures and coverages apply.
Plaintiffs have not supplied an alternate interpretation
of this language. . . .
Absent the completion of
4
repairs, a state of affairs the Plaintiffs admit, the
replacement cost procedures do not apply, and Plaintiffs
are only entitled to actual cash value.
(footnote omitted).
The Court thereafter concluded that summary
judgment was appropriate because Plaintiffs did not offer any
proof of actual cash damages and thus failed to satisfy an
essential element of their breach of contract claim.
In Plaintiffs’ moving brief, they recognize the limited
nature of a motion for reconsideration, and the narrow
circumstances that warrant granting such a motion.
However,
Plaintiffs’ motion fails to show such circumstances exist here.
Plaintiffs concede “there is no intervening change in law or
newly available evidence.”
However, significantly, they do not
cite any case law or fact the Court neglected to consider in its
summary judgment decision.
In their Preliminary Statement,
Plaintiffs argue “the Court erred in granting the defendant’s
motion because the end result is simply unfair, fundamentally
wrong, and constitutes a manifest injustice to those individuals
who were without financial means to repair their homes as a
result of Super Storm Sandy.”
However, Plaintiffs point to no
basis in law or fact to justify the Court revisiting its
decision.
Plaintiffs argue the Court “ignore[d] the plain language of
the policy,” and then merely provide a hypothetical which
purports to show the “illogical results” of the Court’s decision
5
based on an argument that the Court’s interpretation favors the
rich over the poor.
It is, of course, true that those with more
financial resources will find it easier to meet the requirements
of the policy at issue here that requires repairs be completed
before a claim of replacement cost value may accrue, but that
does not alter the plain language of the policy the Plaintiffs
purchased.
Plaintiffs do not pinpoint what “plain language” in
the Policy the Court ignored.
Rather, they want the Court as a
matter of “fairness” to rewrite the bargain struck by the
parties by reading out of the contract a provision they agreed
to and now do not like because it limits their claim of damages.
That the Court cannot do.
As to proving damages, Plaintiffs argue they can prove
Defendant incorrectly calculated the replacement cost and that
“[i]t is not necessary to show the actual amount of Actual Cash
Value,” since the actual cash value “is predicated on a correct
RCV.”
However, proving that Defendant’s calculation is wrong is
not equivalent to Plaintiffs proving their damages.
Even if
replacement cost value and actual cash value are linked,
Plaintiffs still had an obligation at summary judgment to offer
enough proof from which a jury could determine a measure of
damages greater than the amount of actual cost value already
paid by the Defendant.
Having placed all their eggs in the
replacement cost value basket, their failure to do so rendered
6
summary judgment for the Defendant not only appropriate but
required.
The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Date: August 28, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
7
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?