Hochfelder v. Pacific Indemnity Company

Background

On March 9, 2023, the court issued an opinion and order that granted in part and denied in part Pacific Indemnity Company’s motion to dismiss. The court denied the request to dismiss the entire action on timeliness grounds and denied the alternative request to dismiss the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim.

Pacific Indemnity then moved for reconsideration of that decision. It argued that the court had overlooked or misinterpreted controlling law. It relied on decisions from the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of New York. Pacific Indemnity also argued that the court had overlooked its position that the insurance policy’s use of the word “loss” meant that the policy’s suit limitation period began on the date of physical damage.

Reconsideration standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. It explained that reconsideration is appropriate only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Court’s ruling

The court denied Pacific Indemnity’s motion for reconsideration. It held that the district-court decisions cited by Pacific Indemnity were not controlling law and therefore did not provide a proper basis for reconsideration. The court also rejected Pacific Indemnity’s claim that its argument about the insurance policy and the Second Circuit’s decision in Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance Co. had been overlooked. The court had summarized that argument in its earlier opinion and had concluded that Pacific Indemnity had not shown a meaningful difference between this case and Fabozzi.

The court stated that it had not committed clear error and characterized the reconsideration motion as meritless. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket entry 17.