Reverse Now VII, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 46

ORDER denying Defendant's 44 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

REVERSE NOW VII, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C16-209-MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

14
Defendant.
15
16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Oregon Mutual Insurance

17

Company’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on its Motion for Summary

18

Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 43, 44.)

19

Motions for Reconsideration are disfavored and ordinarily will not be granted “in the

20

absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal

21

authority . . .” LCR 7(h)(1). Oregon Mutual claims the Court should reconsider its finding that

22

questions of fact precluded summary judgment in light of “new evidence,” which it claims

23

“make clear that Oregon Mutual did not make unreasonably low offers, but instead was

24

attempting to adjust the claim based on the information on hand and in the face of active

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

obstruction.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 3.) In particular, Oregon Mutual points to a June 2015 email from

2

Mr. Moreland stating that the test repair initially appeared to match, but the color did not hold as

3

the product cured over time and “the results are not very good.” (See Dkt. No. 45 at Ex. 5.)

4

Oregon Mutual claims this email shows that “Reverse Now believed that a match may be

5

possible prior to this first attempt at a test patch,” but “did not inform Oregon Mutual of its

6

position that a match could not be made until its letter of November 6, 2015.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 3.)

7

It is not clear to the Court why this would be grounds for reconsideration. If anything, this “new

8

evidence” further supports Plaintiff’s claim that matching was not feasible. Questions of fact

9

remain as to whether Oregon Mutual’s conduct and its offer for payment were reasonable.

10

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.

11

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

12

Dated February 15, 2018.

14

A

15

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2