RSUI Indemnity Company Inc v. Vision One LLC et al

Filing 132

ORDER denying 89 MOTION for Clarification re Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment re Coverage re 81 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by RSUI Indemnity Company Inc by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC.,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
Case No. C08-1386RSL
v.
VISION ONE, LLC, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification Re Order

17

Granting Partial Summary Judgment Re Coverage” (Dkt. # 89). Although plaintiff’s motion is

18

entitled a “motion for clarification,” the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion is actually a motion

19

for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be

20

granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal

21

authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable

22

diligence.” CR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met this burden.

23

RSUI argues that Berg’s conduct on the job site, its shoring designs, and its direction to

24

D&D Construction, Inc. regarding the shoring designs triggers the policy’s residential work

25

exclusion. Motion at 2-3. Similarly, RSUI argues that the placement of the shoring equipment

26

both under the walkway and in a purely residential garage indicates that the area of collapse was

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION- 1

1

both residential and commercial, and therefore, the exception to residential work exclusion does

2

not apply. Id. at 4-5.

3

Finally, RSUI contends that the Court relied on defendants’ experts’ declarations to

4

determine the meaning of critical policy terms, but “did not cite or discuss the contrary evidence,

5

including Mr. Windt’s opinion...” Id. at 5. As the Court noted in its Order on Cross Motions

6

Regarding Coverage, “RSUI relied on an expert regarding the alleged bad faith of its denial, but

7

did not rely on an expert opinion in its motion regarding coverage.” Order (Dkt. #81) at 6 n.1.

8
9

These arguments are not based on “new facts or legal authority,” and plaintiff has not
shown manifest error. The motion for reconsideration is, therefore, DENIED.

10
11

DATED this 30th day of October, 2012.

12
13

A

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION- 2