From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colony Insurance Company v. Suncoast Medical Clinic

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Oct 12, 2010
CASE NO: 8:09-cv-776-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2010)

Summary

holding that the implementation of policies to facilitate communication about diagnostic tests fell within a professional service exclusion

Summary of this case from Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Premier Pain Specialists, LLC

Opinion

CASE NO: 8:09-cv-776-T-33TGW.

October 12, 2010


ORDER


This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Suncoast's Amended Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 84).

This Court granted summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colony Insurance as against Defendant Suncoast Medical Clinic on July 20, 2010 (Doc. # 80). Suncoast now moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., to reconsider and reverse its Order. Suncoast asserts that this Court's reliance on Alayon del Valle v. Kenyon, 2009 WL 3299373 (D. Puerto Rico Oct. 9, 2009), is misplaced, and, therefore, its Order based thereon constitutes a clear error; and that new case law provides a basis with which the Court can impose on Colony a duty to defend Suncoast.

The decision to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., is within the sound discretion of the Court and will not be overturned on appeal absent abuse of discretion.American Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). There are three grounds that justify granting a motion for reconsideration: 1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence; or 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See CSX Transp., Inc., v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 936 F. Supp. 885, 889 n. 2 (N.D. Fla. 1995); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). "A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected or for attempting to refute the basis for the Court's earlier decision." Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 490 (M.D. Fla. 1999); see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).

Suncoast's motion does not fit within any of these three grounds. Suncoast has not presented a change in the law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Rather, Suncoast's motion asserts arguments already presented and considered by the Court and case law decided prior to this Court's entry of its Order that cannot be considered a change in the law. Thus, Suncoast has not established a basis for this Court's reconsideration of its previous Order granting the summary judgment in favor of Colony.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: Defendant Suncoast's Amended Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 84) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of October, 2010.


Summaries of

Colony Insurance Company v. Suncoast Medical Clinic

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Oct 12, 2010
CASE NO: 8:09-cv-776-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2010)

holding that the implementation of policies to facilitate communication about diagnostic tests fell within a professional service exclusion

Summary of this case from Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Premier Pain Specialists, LLC

holding that a medical services exclusion barred coverage for claims alleging a failure to have in place adequate policies, procedures, staff and assistive technology to ensure performance of diagnostic tests and communication between medical personnel because they were "an intricate part of the medical services provided"

Summary of this case from Westfield Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic & Sports Med. Ctr. of N. Ind., Inc.

implementing policies and procedures are an intricate part of professional services which can trigger a professional services exclusion

Summary of this case from Goldberg v. National Union Fire Insurance
Case details for

Colony Insurance Company v. Suncoast Medical Clinic

Case Details

Full title:COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SUNCOAST MEDICAL CLINIC, LLC, et…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Oct 12, 2010

Citations

CASE NO: 8:09-cv-776-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2010)

Citing Cases

Md. Cas. Co. v. Fla. Atl. Orthopedics

Florida law applies to this action. See Colony Ins. Co. v. Suncoast Medical Clinic, LLC, 726 F.Supp.2d 1369,…

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic & Sports Med. Ctr. of N. Ind., Inc.

While Indiana courts have not addressed the Health Care Services Exclusion, other jurisdictions have found…