Navigators Insurance Company v. Goyard, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted Goyard’s motion to strike the expert report of Robert V. Comegys. Navigators moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, arguing that the court had overlooked decisions permitting insurance experts to testify about customs and practices in the insurance industry.

Governing standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary and narrowly applied remedy. It generally requires the moving party to identify a controlling decision or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change the result, an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. A party also may not use reconsideration to present arguments or authorities that it could have raised earlier, relitigate previously addressed issues, or seek a second opportunity to make its case.

Court’s analysis

Navigators relied on decisions including SR International Business Insurance Co. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC and Seneca Insurance Co. v. Wilcock. The court held that these decisions did not support reconsideration because they predated the decision striking Comegys’s report and had not been cited in Navigators’ opposition to the original motion. The court therefore was not required to consider them as showing an intervening change in the law.

The court also considered the substance of those authorities. It explained that SR International involved expert testimony about insurance-industry practices that helped explain why specific policy terms were included. Seneca allowed testimony about the industry use of specific terms but excluded testimony addressing ultimate legal issues. In contrast, Comegys’s report contained only one sentence concerning a claimed standard practice in the cargo-insurance market and otherwise focused on the interaction of contractual provisions.

The court found the report unsupported by meaningful discussion or analysis of industry customs. It also concluded that the report principally offered a view about whether the policy provided coverage. That question was a matter of law for the court, not an issue on which an expert could offer a legal conclusion. The court rejected Navigators’ argument that the report did not address the ultimate issue because coverage also depended on whether the loss resulted from a riot or civil commotion. Once that factual issue was resolved, the court said, the policy-coverage question remained a legal question.

The court separately discussed Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Board v. American Alternative Insurance Corp. and found that decision did not support admitting the report. Although that court allowed some testimony about general practices and how a policy was structured, it did not allow the expert to testify about what the policy’s terms meant. The court stated that understanding the structure of the policy in this case required no specialized expertise.

Disposition

The court denied Navigators’ motion for reconsideration, docket number 78. The ruling concerned the admissibility of the report and the views expressed in it at summary judgment and trial. The court also stated that Comegys could not offer new expert testimony that had not been disclosed by the expert-disclosure deadline.

Bottom line

The prior decision striking Comegys’s report remained in effect because Navigators had not shown that the court overlooked controlling authority or committed a clear error, and because the report offered unsupported conclusions about the legal meaning and coverage effect of the insurance policy.