The opinion of the court was delivered by: Conti, District Judge
Pending before the court is "Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the September 25, 2006 Memorandum Order" (the "motion for reconsideration") (Doc. No. 49) filed by Allstate Insurance Company ("defendant"). In the memorandum order, this court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Pamela, Robert and Gina Trunzo ("plaintiffs"). Trunzo v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2006 WL 2773468 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 25, 2006). In its motion for reconsideration, defendant essentially attempts to relitigate issues that it previously raised in the above-captioned action, and which were decided in the September 25, 2006 memorandum order of this court. The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
A motion for reconsideration is granted only if one of three situations is shown: "(1) the availability of new evidence not previously available, (2) an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
Because of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly; the parties are not free to relitigate issues the court has already decided. . . . Stated another way, a motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded in a request for a district court to rethink a decision it has already made, rightly or wrongly.
Williams v. Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998).
In support of its motion for reconsideration, defendant calls the court's attention to neither new evidence nor an intervening change in the applicable law. Instead, defendant bases its motion solely on the basis of "the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." (Doc. No. 49 at 2-5). In support of its motion, defendant makes three distinct arguments. First, defendant argues that the court erred in failing to properly construe the language of Allstate Automobile Insurance Policy Florida AU 109-2 (the "Policy"). Second, defendant argues that the court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claim under 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 8371. Third, defendant contends that it was prejudiced by the court's failure to entertain an oral argument session before disposing of the motions for summary judgment. The court will address each argument in turn.
Defendant argues that the court failed to adopt a construction of the words "auto we insure." In focusing on these three words, defendant fails to appreciate that the court construed more than just three words. In the memorandum opinion, the portions of the Policy being construed appear in italics. Trunzo, 2006 WL 2773468 at *3, n. 1. The Policy, in pertinent part, provides:
Definitions Used Throughout the Policy
The following definitions apply throughout the policy unless otherwise indicated. Defined terms are printed in bold face type.
1. Allstate, we, us, or our means the company shown on the Policy Declarations.
2. Auto means a land motor vehicle designed for use principally upon public roads.
3. Resident or reside means the physical presence in your household with the intention to continue living there. Your unmarried dependent children while temporarily away from home will be considered resident(s), if they intend to continue to live in your household.
4. Utility auto means an auto of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type. This auto must have a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less, ...