United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, For Relief Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. #62) filed on August 12,
2019. Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #76) on
September 4, 2019, and plaintiff replied (Doc. #84). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
case involves an insurance coverage dispute for damages to
plaintiff’s country club property in Naples, Florida
from Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff Grey Oaks Country Club, Inc.
(plaintiff or Grey Oaks) alleges that Zurich American
Insurance Company (defendant or Zurich) breached its coverage
obligations to Grey Oaks under a commercial insurance policy,
which is attached to the Amended Complaint (Doc. #20-1, the
“Policy”) (Count I), and acted in bad faith in
contravention of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 (Count II). The
Court dismissed Count II (Doc. #8); therefore, only the
breach of contract count for defendant’s failure to
compensate Grey Oaks in the full amount of its damages and
loss resulting from Hurricane Irma remains. Defendant filed
an Answer (Doc. #23) on January 18, 2019.
parties cross moved for partial judgment on the pleadings,
asking the Court to favor their interpretation of the limits
of coverage for “Golf Course Outdoor Grounds”
available under the Policy, which turns on the determination
of what the word “premises” means under the
endorsement. Grey Oaks argued that the Policy contains a
Schedule of Locations that specifically lists 19 locations,
thereby producing up to $9, 500, 000 of available coverage
for the club’s outdoor damages due to Hurricane Irma.
Zurich asserted that there is only one
15, 2019, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Doc. #55)
denying plaintiff’s Motion and granting in part
defendant’s Motion. In sum, the Court found that the
definition of “premises” in the Policy is
unambiguous and that there are two “premises” for
purposes of the Golf Course Outdoor Grounds Coverage –
2400 Grey Oaks Dr N. and 1600 Estuary Dr. Therefore, the
Court denied Grey Oaks’ Motion and granted
Zurich’s Motion to the extent the Court limited the
premises to the two addresses listed above subject to the
Policy’s $500, 000 per premises limit of liability in
the Golf Course Outdoor Grounds Coverage insuring agreement.
Oaks contends that the Court committed clear error under
Florida law and manifest injustice warrants reconsideration
of the Court’s Opinion for “multiple
reasons” but only specifically discusses three reasons.
(Doc. #62 at 2.) First, after rejecting Zurich’s
interpretation of the Policy as unreasonable, the Court
should have deemed the Policy ambiguous at best and construed
it liberally in Grey Oaks’ favor. Second, the Court
refused to give any meaning to the Schedule of Locations
within the property coverage section even though the
Policy’s plain language makes clear that this schedule
applies to the entire Policy. And third, the Court declined
to apply the Schedule of Locations because Grey Oaks did not
cite any legal authority for the proposition that a
policy’s “Common Policy Forms and
Endorsements” must be applied to all coverage sections.
Court determines that reconsideration is not warranted, Grey
Oaks alternatively requests that the Court certify this case
for interlocutory appeal.
decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and may be granted to
correct an abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest Serv.
Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d
800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993). “The courts have delineated
three major grounds justifying reconsideration of such a
decision: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman
v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694
(M.D. Fla. 1994). Here, Grey Oaks argues that the third
ground warrants reconsideration – the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not
merely readdress issues litigated previously.”
PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P’ship v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F.Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla.
1995). The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to
reverse its prior decision. Taylor Woodrow Const. Corp.
v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F.Supp. 1072,
1073 (M.D. Fla. 1993); PaineWebber, 902 F.Supp. at
1521. “When issues have been carefully considered and
decisions rendered, the only reason which should commend
reconsideration of that decision is a change in the factual
or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based.
Taylor Woodrow, 814 F.Supp. at 1072-73.
motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to
simply reargue - or argue for the first time - an issue the
Court has already determined. Court opinions “are not
intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.”
Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123
F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “The burden is upon
the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances
supporting reconsideration.” Mannings v. School Bd.
of Hillsborough County, Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D.
Fla. 1993). Unless the movant’s arguments fall into the
limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider
must be denied.