Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:2011cv02375 - Document 428 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 415 Motion for Reconsideration re 347 Order on 242 Motion for Summary Judgment Finding No Duty to Defend Masse or Allied in the Underlying Adams Lawsuit. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/8/2016. (Reference: all cases)(cg) (Main Document 428 replaced on 12/8/2016 to correct footnote 1) (tsf).

Download PDF
Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc. et al Doc. 428 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A H AN OVER IN SU RAN CE COMPAN Y, Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 11-2 3 75 c/ w 14 -19 3 0 14 -19 3 3 , 16 -2 4 9 0 SU PERIOR LABOR SERVICES, IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION “E” Ap p lie s t o : All Ca s e s ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Masse Contracting, Inc.’s (“Masse”) m otion for reconsideration. 1 The m otion is opposed. 2 On Decem ber 1, 20 15, State National Insurance Com pany (“State National”) filed four m otions for sum m ary judgm ent, seeking a determ ination that it does not owe a defen se to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as an additional insured in the Adam s and St. Pierre lawsuits. 3 On April 8, 20 16, the Court denied two of these m otions—those seekin g a judgm ent that State National owed no defense to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as an additional insured in the St. Pierre lawsuit. 4 The Court granted the other two m otions—those seeking a judgm ent that State National owed no duty to Superior or Masse as insureds or Allied as an additional insured in the Adam s lawsuit. 5 In Masse’s m otion, it asks the Court to reconsider two of its rulings under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 R. Doc. 415. Superior Labor Services, Inc. joins in Masse’s m otion. R. Doc. 423. R. Doc. 424. 3 R. Docs. 242, 243, 244, 245. 4 R. Doc. 347. 5 R. Doc. 347. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Although Masse brings its m otion under Rule 59(e), Masse filed its m otion for reconsideration m ore than 28 days from the entry of the Court’s order. 6 Therefore, the Court will consider the m otion for reconsideration under Rule 60 (b). Rule 60 (b) provides that a court, “[o]n m otion and just term s,” m ay “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgm ent, order, or proceeding” due to: (1) m istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in tim e to m ove for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), m isrepresentation, or m isconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgm ent is void; (5) the judgm ent has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgm ent that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 7 The purpose of Rule 60 (b) “is to balance the principle of finality of a judgm ent with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.”8 As the m oving party, Masse has the burden to show why the Court should vacate the Court’s prior judgm ent. 9 The determ ination of whether Masse has satisfied its burden lies within this Court’s sound discretion. 10 Granting relief under Rule 60 is “an extraordinary rem edy which should be used sparingly.”11 Consequen tly, the “scope of relief that m ay be obtain ed under Rule 60 (b) is strictly lim ited.”12 A m otion to vacate a judgm ent is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing 6 “A m otion to alter or am end a judgm ent m ust be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgm ent.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). 7 F ED . R. CIV. P. 60 (b)(1)-(6). 8 Hesling v. CSX Transp., In c., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 9 See League of United Latin Am . Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 438 (5th Cir. 20 11). 10 Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 40 0 (5th Cir. 20 10 ). 11 Tem plet v. H y droChem In c., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 20 0 4); see also Pease v. Pakhoed, 980 F.2d 995, 998 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Courts are disinclined to disturb judgm ents under the aegis of Rule 60 (b).”). 12 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 60 .0 2 (3d ed. 20 10 ). 2 eviden ce, legal theories, or argum ents that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgm ent.”13 Masse argues there is new evidence to con sider in determ ining whether State National owes a duty to defend Masse and Superior as insureds and Allied as an additional insured. 14 This new evidence, Masse argues, is the sixth am en ded petition filed by the Adam s plaintiffs on May 6, 20 16. 15 In the Court’s ruling on State National’s m otions for sum m ary judgm ent, it considered the Adam s plaintiffs’ third am ended petition, which was the latest am en ded pleading at the tim e the Order was issued. 16 To warrant the granting of a m otion for reconsideration under Rule 60 (b)(2), Masse m ust show that the “newly discovered eviden ce”—the sixth am ended petition— could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence in tim e to m ove for a new trial under Rule 59(b). 17 The Court’s order was issued on April 8, 20 16. 18 The Adam s plaintiffs filed the sixth am ended petition on May 6, 20 16—28 days later. 19 The tim e to m ove for a new trial under Rule 59(b) is 28 days after the entry of judgm ent. 20 Therefore, the “newly discovered evidence” could have been discovered with reasonable diligence in tim e to m ove for a new trial under Rule 59(b). Even if Masse were not faced with this obstacle, the Court would still find there is no reason to grant relief under Rule 60 (b). Masse is correct that “[t]he duty to defend is determ ined by consulting the latest am ended pleading.”21 The Court did just that—it 13 Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 478. R. Doc. 415-1 at 1. 15 R. Doc. 415-2 at 19. 16 R. Doc. 347. 17 F ED . R. CIV. P. 60 (b)(2). 18 R. Doc. 347. 19 R. Doc. 415-2 at 19. 20 F ED . R. CIV. P. 59(b). 21 R. Doc. 415-1 (citing N orthfield Ins. Co. v . Loving Hom e Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 14 3 considered the third am ended petition, which was the latest am en ded pleading filed at the tim e of the Court’s ruling. 22 Masse argues “when a petition is am ended, the duty-todefend analysis m ust be perform ed again to determ ine whether the am en ded petition alleges liability that is potentially within the scope of insurance coverage.”23 The Court does not disagree, and if another m otion for sum m ary judgm ent m otion is filed before the Court with respect to State National’s duty to defend in the Adam s lawsuit, the Court will consider the latest am ended pleading—currently, the sixth am ended petition. The possibility of the Court considering the question of State National’s duty to defend in the future, however, does not m ean that its prior ruling was in error or should be disturbed. Accordingly, IT IS ORD ERED that Masse’s m otion 24 is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 8 th d ay o f D e ce m be r, 2 0 16 . _____________________________ S U SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 22 The Court’s rulin g was issued on April 8, 20 16. The sixth am ended petition was not filed until May 6, 20 16. 23 R. Doc. 415-1 at 3– 4 (citing Maldonado v. Kiew it Louisiana Co., 146 So. 3d 210 (La Ct. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 24/ 14)). 24 R. Doc. 415. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.