Cosmopolitan Shipping CO., Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company

Background

On January 22, 2021, after an evidentiary hearing, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The court found that Cosmopolitan had not established, even by a preponderance of the evidence, the terms of a lost insurance policy that would provide coverage for various underlying asbestos claims.

On February 3, 2021, Cosmopolitan filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that this remedy is limited to situations involving an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. It cannot be used to relitigate issues, present new arguments, or seek another hearing on the merits.

Arguments and Analysis

Cosmopolitan argued that the court had overlooked facts concerning three subjects: its bareboat charters with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration; the relationship between those charters, the WARTIMEPANDI policies, and Continental Insurance Company’s Policy C-4893; and the alleged status of Policy C-4893 as a standard-form open-cover protection and indemnity policy.

The court rejected those arguments. It stated that it had admitted and considered the exhibits Cosmopolitan requested, along with the parties’ submissions, hearing transcript, witness credibility, and post-hearing submissions. The court had already considered Cosmopolitan’s argument that Policy C-4893 was a form policy or contained the same terms as a sample WARTIMEPANDI policy. It had previously concluded that Policy C-4893 was not a standard WARTIMEPANDI policy and that the evidence suggested the policy did not automatically use boilerplate language.

The court also found that Cosmopolitan’s reliance on American-Foreign Steamship Corp. v. United States did not identify an intervening change in controlling law. The court declined to consider facts about the Ship Sales Act of 1946 and a 1947 appropriations bill because Cosmopolitan had not presented those facts during the hearing or in its hearing submissions. Finally, the court said it had considered the spreadsheet comparing three sample insurance policies but had not found that the policies showed sufficiently consistent terms to establish the terms of Policy C-4893.

Ruling

The court found that Cosmopolitan had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent injustice. Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore ordered that Cosmopolitan’s Motion for Reargument and Reconsideration was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Docket 214.