Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Carney

October 6, 2006

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS L. CARNEY, SR. AND MICHELLE KOLESNIK CARNEY, H/W, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge

JUDGE CAPUTO

MEMORANDUM

Before me is Unopposed Motion of Plaintiff, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, to Reconsider, Vacate, and Withdraw the Order and Opinion of July 26, 2006 Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) (Doc. 48). It is based on the fact that in my Memorandum and consequent Order of July 26, 2006 wherein I denied Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Defendant Thomas L. Carney, Sr., I did not consider Plaintiff's argument that the concealment and fraud conditions of the operative policy barred recovery. Plaintiff is correct. I failed to consider that particular contention and do so here.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest error of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration only if the moving party shows:

(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the Court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Litigants should not use a motion for reconsideration to reargue matters already argued and disposed of by prior rulings or to put forth additional arguments that the litigant neglected to make prior to judgment. See Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992). In deference to the strong interest in the finality of judgments, courts should grant motions for reconsideration sparingly. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Here, I failed to consider Plaintiff's contention that the concealment and fraud condition of the policy bars recovery.

DISCUSSION

Sections I and II - Conditions of the policy provide:

2. Concealment or Fraud

a. Under Section I - Property Coverages, with respect to all insureds covered under this policy, we provide no coverage for loss under Section I - Property Coverages if, whether before or after a loss, one or more insureds have:

(1) Intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance;

(2) Engaged in fraudulent conduct; or

(3) Made false statements; relating to this insurance.

Plaintiff argues that this provision is not an exclusion, but rather a condition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.