Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Expeditors International of…
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:17-cv-02575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Indemnity Insurance v. Expeditors, Judge Oetken denied reconsideration because the plaintiff had waived its argument about indirect carriers.
The ruling affected Indemnity Insurance Company of North America and the defendants, including Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., by denying reconsideration of the earlier order.
What happened
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. concerned the plaintiff’s request to revisit an earlier order resolving the parties’ cross-motions.
The plaintiff argued that the court had erred by deciding that it waived its argument that indirect carriers qualified as carriers under China Air’s waybill.
Judge J. Paul Oetken found that the court had overlooked neither controlling law nor a crucial fact, and denied the motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Expeditors International of… · No. 1:17-cv-02575
- James Oetken
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, acting as subrogor of GE Aviation Materials, L.P., moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier Opinion and Order resolving the parties’ cross-motions. The motion concerned the court’s conclusion that Indemnity had waived an argument that indirect carriers qualified as carriers under China Air’s waybill.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. A party seeking it must show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Ruling
The court reviewed the record and the parties’ memorandums of law and concluded that it had overlooked neither a controlling legal issue nor a crucial fact. The court noted that Indemnity had not made the indirect-carrier argument in its briefing, so the argument was waived. Judge J. Paul Oetken therefore denied Indemnity’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 89.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.