New York University v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company

Background

This insurance-coverage dispute arose from losses that New York University (NYU) said it sustained during and after Superstorm Sandy. NYU sued Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FM), asserting five claims seeking declarations about the scope of flood coverage at the complex of buildings called the “superblock,” and a sixth claim for breach of contract based on FM’s alleged wrongful denial of coverage. FM sought a declaration that the policy’s $40 million flood sublimit applied to all buildings on the superblock, or, alternatively, reformation of that sublimit.

After the court denied NYU’s request to add four claims, the parties received permission to file cross-motions for summary judgment. FM moved for summary judgment on all six of NYU’s claims and on FM’s counterclaim. NYU sought summary judgment on FM’s counterclaims and its declaratory claims, while opposing FM’s motion as to NYU’s breach-of-contract claim. On March 19, 2019, the court granted FM’s motion for summary judgment, denied NYU’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and entered judgment for FM.

NYU’s Post-Judgment Motion

NYU moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, while Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment or order in specified circumstances. NYU argued that its lawsuit also included claims concerning non-flood and non-superblock damages that had not been addressed in the summary-judgment briefing or at oral argument. NYU contended that the judgment therefore should not have ended the entire case.

The court explained that Rule 59 is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the case. It also stated that Rule 60(b) relief requires exceptional circumstances and that post-judgment motions generally cannot be used to present arguments or evidence that could have been presented before judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected NYU’s description of the litigation as involving unresolved non-flood and non-superblock claims. It said that, as presented to the court, the case concerned coverage for flood losses at the superblock. FM’s motion expressly sought summary judgment on “each of NYU’s claims,” and the parties’ joint request to file summary-judgment motions stated that both parties anticipated moving on all claims and counterclaims.

The court further held that, even assuming the additional claims were adequately pleaded, it was entitled to infer that NYU had abandoned them because NYU did not raise them in opposition to FM’s case-dispositive motion. The court distinguished cases involving unrepresented parties and relied on the rule that, in a case involving represented parties, a party’s partial opposition to summary judgment may show that claims not addressed have been abandoned.

The court also rejected NYU’s reliance on its complaint and discovery activities that were not presented as part of the summary-judgment dispute. It concluded that NYU could not use those materials for the first time after judgment to obtain relief. The court separately stated that the stay of discovery concerning loss causation involved whether faulty workmanship caused flood damage, not whether resulting damage was still “flood” damage subject to the policy’s $40 million sublimit.

Disposition

The court denied NYU’s post-judgment motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket number 160 and close the case. The opinion did not describe the motion as denied with or without prejudice.