Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-06-196 RRC.
Submitted: April 15, 2005.
Decided: May 4, 2005.
On Harleysville Insurance Co.'s Motion for Reargument.
DENIED.
Stephen P. Casarino, Esquire, Casarino, Christman Shalk, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Capital Management Company.
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehay, Warner, Coleman Coggin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Cathedral Community Services and The Church Insurance Company.
Dear Counsel:
Currently before this Court is a motion for reargument filed pursuant to Superior Court Rule 59(e) by Harleysville Insurance Co. ("Harleysville") in response to this Court's March 24, 2005 memorandum opinion that concluded among other issues that Harleysville was responsible for its own defense costs and had to pay post-judgment interest on the amount of the judgment that had to be paid by Harleysville. The Church Insurance Co. ("Church") opposes the motion for reargument on the grounds that Harleysville's motion seeks to "merely rehash arguments it has already made, relying upon the same case citations provided in its supplemental memorandum of points and authorities."
Harleysville's Motion for Reargument at ¶ 1. See Brown v. The Church Insurance Co., Del Super., C.A. No. 02C-06-196, Cooch, J. at 26-27 (March 24, 2005) (Mem. Op.) (holding that "[h]aving waived Capital's right to a defense from Church, Harleysville is responsible for the defense cost associated with its defense of Capital (including the post-trial costs associated with the case at bar) and does not have a right to be reimbursed for defense costs from Church").
Church's Answer at ¶ 2.
In Delaware, the standard of review for a Rule 59(e) motion for reargument is well defined. A motion for reargument "will be denied unless the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." The Delaware Supreme Court has held that "[a] motion for reargument is not intended to rehash the arguments already decided by the court."
See Norfleet v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Inc., 2001 Del. Lexis 328 (Del.Super.Ct.)
Board of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice System Information System v. Gannett Co., 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 27 *4.
McElroy v. Shell Petroleum Inc., 1992 Del. LEXIS 449 *2.
Harleysville has not argued that "this Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." Harleysville has not pointed out any new "controlling precedent or legal principles," rather; Harleysville attempts to "rehash" the arguments already made to this Court. Harleysville relies upon the same precedents in this motion for reargument as it relied upon in its original argument before this Court.
Harleysville restates the facts of the underlying case as they relate to insurance coverage and the tendering of defenses by Harleysville's and Church's insureds. The inference from Harleysville's argument is that this Court has somehow "misapprehended . . . the facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." However, the Court was aware of the undisputed facts and it considered the controlling law as it relates to those facts in reaching its decision. The gist Harleysville's argument is that under its interpretation of the applicable case law, this Court has wrongly decided the issue of whether Harleysville is responsible for its own defense costs and had to pay post-judgment interest on the amount of the judgment that was attributable to Harleysville. This is not the proper basis for a motion for reargument.
Having reviewed its decision that Harleysville is responsible for its own defense costs and had to pay post-judgment interest on the amount of the judgment that was attributable to Harleysville, this Court does not find that its decision would change based on further argument in regard to the Courts holding that Harleysville is responsible for its defense costs and the post-judgment interest attributed to it share of the award. For the foregoing reasons, Harleysville's motion for reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.