Opinion
C.A. No. N10C-04-078 MMJ.
Submitted: April 20, 2011.
Decided: May 16, 2011.
On Plaintiff Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc.'s Motion for Reargument. DENIED.
Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Colin Shalk, Esquire, Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esquire, Casarino, Christman, Shalk, Ransom Doss, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
1. By opinion dated April 21, 2011, the Court granted defendant Atlantic States Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied plaintiff Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court found that the underlying complaint failed to set forth any basis by which Blue Hen could be liable for a covered risk. The Court considered the Atlantic policy and the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the facts and allegations set forth in the complaint, and Court held that there was no duty on the part of Atlantic to provide a defense to Blue Hen in the underlying action.
2. Plaintiff has moved for reargument. Plaintiff asserts that the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company , decided January 7, 2011, provides authority that should have been considered by this Court. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit in support of its Motion. The Affidavit purports to provide facts sufficient to make this case analogous to Crossman.
2011 WL 93716 (S.C.).
3. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. "A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969).
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, Del. Super., 2002 WL 356371, Witham, J. (Feb. 21, 2002); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994).
4. The Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff's submissions. Neither the additional opinion nor the affidavit provide a basis for the Court to alter its opinion. Further, the Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.