Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America
- John Keenan
- 1:18-cv-08152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Pilkington North America v. Mitsui Sumitomo, Judge Keenan denied reconsideration but granted limited clarification of an earlier dismissal of counterclaims.
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America’s counterclaims remained dismissed. The clarification limited the scope of the earlier decision regarding potential claims or defenses involving other parties, including Aon Risk Services Central, Inc.
What happened
Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America concerns insurance coverage for damage from a tornado that struck Pilkington’s glass factory. Pilkington alleges that Mitsui Sumitomo and its broker failed to explain that an insurance endorsement reduced windstorm coverage.
Mitsui Sumitomo asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing the company’s counterclaims against Pilkington. It also asked the court to clarify whether that decision would affect claims against other parties or possible defenses.
Judge John F. Keenan denied reconsideration because Mitsui Sumitomo did not identify a reason to revisit the dismissal. He granted clarification to the limited extent that the earlier decision addressed only Mitsui Sumitomo’s right to relief from Pilkington and would not presumptively control later issues.
The detailed version
- Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America · No. 1:18-cv-08152
- John Keenan
- Mar. 2, 2021
Background
The dispute arises from an approximately $60 million to $100 million loss after a tornado struck Pilkington’s glass manufacturing factory in Ottawa, Illinois, on or around February 28, 2017. Pilkington seeks payment under a commercial property and business-interruption insurance policy issued by Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America (MSI) to NSG Holding USA II, Inc., a division of Pilkington’s parent company.
Pilkington alleges that MSI misrepresented changes in an endorsement to an earlier insurance policy. According to Pilkington, the endorsement changed currency valuations but also reduced coverage for certain windstorms, and Aon Risk Services Central, Inc., Pilkington’s insurance broker, failed to inform Pilkington of that reduction. The policy containing the disputed terms was in effect when the tornado struck.
Earlier Counterclaims and Decision
MSI asserted counterclaims for equitable estoppel and declaratory judgment. It asked the court to declare that windstorm losses were subject to a $15 million sublimit and to prevent Pilkington from seeking amounts above the $15 million MSI had already paid.
On November 10, 2020, the court granted Pilkington’s motion to dismiss those counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a pleading does not plausibly state a claim. The court dismissed the declaratory-judgment counterclaim as redundant because Pilkington’s earlier-filed declaratory-judgment claim already provided a vehicle for deciding the parties’ rights and obligations under the policy. The court dismissed the equitable-estoppel counterclaim because MSI had not plausibly alleged that Aon’s statements were false when made or that MSI suffered injustice or unfair prejudice. The court also held that, even if the claim had been plausibly alleged, the equitable remedy would be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands because of MSI’s conduct related to the dispute.
Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification
MSI moved for reconsideration or clarification of the November 10 decision. MSI challenged the findings concerning falsity and unclean hands but did not challenge the dismissal of its declaratory-judgment counterclaim or the finding that it had not plausibly alleged injustice or unfair prejudice. MSI also stated that it was not seeking to revive its equitable-estoppel counterclaim against Pilkington.
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an overlooked controlling decision or data, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It is not a means to repeat arguments or present a new theory.
The court denied reconsideration. Because MSI did not seek to revive its equitable-estoppel counterclaim and did not challenge the finding concerning injustice or unfair prejudice, the court concluded that there was no reason to reconsider the dismissal. The court also rejected MSI’s argument that the earlier pleading alleged that Aon had advised Pilkington about the scope and terms of its insurance coverage. The court stated that the cited allegations instead described Aon as Pilkington’s broker and agent and said that the pleading did not allege what information or advice Aon provided to Pilkington in connection with the relevant insurance submission.
The court granted MSI’s request for clarification to a limited extent. It clarified that the November 10 decision addressed only whether MSI had plausibly alleged a right to relief from Pilkington. It did not decide whether MSI had plausibly alleged a right to relief from other parties or whether defenses MSI might later assert were proper. The court further stated that the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally guides a court’s treatment of issues already decided, is discretionary and would not presumptively bind the court’s hands before final judgment.
Disposition
The court denied MSI’s motion for reconsideration. It granted MSI’s request for clarification to the extent described in the opinion and directed the clerk to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 197.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.