United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
ORDER
JOSEPH
A. DICLERICO, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Acceptance
Indemnity Insurance Company moves for reconsideration of the
court's order denying its motion to dismiss. In support,
AIIC argues that the court erroneously failed to dismiss Noah
Wells's claims based on two policy exclusions. Wells
objects.[1]
Standard
of Review
Reconsideration
of a prior order is appropriate only “‘if the
moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if there has
been an intervening change in the law, or if the movant can
demonstrate that the original decision was based on a
manifest error of law or was clearly unjust.'”
United States v. Zimny, 846 F.3d 458, 467 (1st Cir.
2017) (quoting United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42,
53 (1st Cir. 2009)). For that reason, “[a] motion for
reconsideration is not the venue to undo procedural snafus or
permit a party to advance arguments it should have developed
[before the court issued its order].” Biltcliffe v.
CitiMorgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014). It
is also not “a mechanism to regurgitate old arguments
previously considered and rejected.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Discussion
In his
complaint, Wells seeks a declaration that AIIC, the company
that provided indemnity insurance for his business, owes him
a defense and indemnification in an underlying suit brought
by an agent of a subcontractor, and brings a claim that AIIC
breached the policy by denying coverage. AIIC moved to
dismiss the claims based on two exclusions in the policy that
purport to exclude coverage for injury to independent
contractors. Wells objected, arguing that the policy is at
least ambiguous, based on the declarations page and an
endorsement that imposed a special condition for coverage of
independent contractors.
As
explained previously, “[t]he language of a contract is
ambiguous if the parties to the contract could reasonably
disagree as to the meaning of that language.” Found.
for Seacoast Health v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 165 N.H.
168, 172 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
determine whether an ambiguity exists, the “court
should examine the contract as a whole, the circumstances
surrounding execution and the object intended by the
agreement, while keeping in mind the goal of giving effect to
the intentions of the party.” Id. The process
of determining whether an ambiguity exists “necessarily
involves factual findings.” Sunapee
Difference, LLC v. State, 164 N.H. 778, 790
(2013).
The
court found that the cited provisions appeared to be at odds
with each other and that additional explanation was needed to
understand the operation of the policy as a whole. Because of
the limited context of a motion to dismiss, there was
insufficient information to determine what the policy covered
or whether it was ambiguous. AIIC contends that conclusion
was erroneous because interpretation of the policy is a legal
question and attempts to provide the additional explanation
that was lacking in the motion to dismiss.
In
support, counsel for AIIC represents that the
“Declarations” part of the policy merely provides
“rating information” and cites a District of
Rhode Island case to show that “rating
information” may be limited by exclusions in the
policy. Counsel then continues on to explain that the
Declarations do not grant coverage. Counsel also addresses
the purpose of the Independent Contractors Special Condition
and represents that it “compliments, rather than
conflicts with, the exclusionary provisions.”
As
such, counsel for AIIC raises factual issues about the
meaning of the policy and the intent of the parties. Counsel
for AIIC attempts to augment the motion to dismiss by
providing explanation and information that was missing in the
motion to dismiss. It is far from clear that counsel is
qualified to provide opinions on the structure and operation
of an insurance policy or on the intent of the parties. In
any event, such information is not appropriate for purposes
of a motion to dismiss or a motion for reconsideration of the
denial of a motion to dismiss.[2] Instead, these matters may be
presented in an appropriate format to be considered in the
context of a motion for summary judgment.
Conclusion
For the
foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for
reconsideration (document no. 20) and motion for leave to
file a reply (document no. 22) are denied.
SO
...