ZAGAFEN BALA, LLC et al v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CHAD F. KENNEY ON 2/17/21. 2/17/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, )

Case 2:20-cv-03033-CFK Document 33 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ZAGAFEN BALA, LLC,
VK TAVERN, LLC,
VINTAGE KOSHER, LLC,
REAL FRESH, INC.,
individually and on behalf
of all others similarly
situated,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 20-3033

Memorandum Opinion
Plaintiffs ask the Court to set aside or amend its judgment (ECF Nos. 30 and
31) so they can amend their complaint to plead that Plaintiffs reasonably expected
their COVID-19-related business losses to be covered under their insurance
policies with the Defendant. However, Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
requirements of either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or 59(e).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a
party from a final judgment in the case of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied…; or (6) “any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court finds that none of these grounds are
1

Case 2:20-cv-03033-CFK Document 33 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 3

applicable here. Furthermore, the additional facts Plaintiffs propose to plead are
conclusory statements that would not change the Court’s prior analysis, and so
cannot warrant relief from the judgment. The Court addressed Plaintiffs’ claim that
the “reasonable expectations” doctrine supports their interpretation of the Policy
and found that there was no reasonable expectation of coverage under the
circumstances that could overcome the unambiguous language of the policy. The
proposed additional pleadings would not change that. Thus, relief is not justified
under Rule 60(b).
A Rule 59(e) motion provides for amending or altering a final judgment on
one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995). None of these circumstances is present here either. Plaintiffs
cite recent decisions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressing
substantially similar business interruption policies and finding that the reasonable
expectations of the insured may apply. ECF No. 32-3 at 4-5. However, these cases
do not represent a change in controlling law or evidence of a clear error of law
from this Court. Motions for reconsideration should be granted sparing in the
interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. Pennsylvania Ins.

2

Case 2:20-cv-03033-CFK Document 33 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3

Guar. Ass’n v. Trabosh, 812 F. Supp. 522, 524 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Reconsideration is
not appropriate in this case.

Date: February 17, 2021

By the Court:
/s/ Chad F. Kenney
Chad F. Kenney

3