Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00360/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00360-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

American Family Insurance Group, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Milo Bergeson, as Father, Guardian, and

best Friend of Christopher Bo Bergeson

and Amy Lyn Bergeson, the minor

children of Lynn Renee Bergeson,

deceased, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-0360 PHX DGC

ORDER

Defendants/Counterclaimants Milo and Christopher Bo Bergeson have moved for a

new trial and for reconsideration of this Court’s September 14, 2010 order (Doc. 113) that

granted summary judgment to Plaintiff American Family Insurance Group (“AFIG”) and

denied Defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. 115. The Court will

deny the motion for the reasons stated in this order. 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct.15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent a showing

of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been

brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.2003). Mere disagreement with an order is

an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 130 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Moreover, the Court has reviewed the summary judgment briefing. Defendants did not

present competent evidence that the junction box and insulation were the cause of the harm.

Defendants cannot raise arguments for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.

- 2 -

(D. Ariz. Apr.15, 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to

ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N. W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the court’s initial decision, or

(4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the court failed to consider material

facts that were presented to the court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g., Motorola,

Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Defendants do not satisfy any of these requirements. Defendants do not cite new law

or new facts that occurred after the Court’s decision. Instead, Defendants take issue with the

Court considering only the allegations in Defendants’ complaint against the Levengoods

when deciding whether AFIG had a duty to cover and defend. Defendants argue that AFIG

knew that there was no junction box in the ceiling and that there was highly flammable

insulation in the ceiling, and they cite Arizona cases where decisions regarding an insurer’s

duty to defend are said to be based on the facts as developed through competent evidence and

not only on the facts as alleged. See, e.g., Kepner v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 509 P.2d 222,

224 (Ariz. 1973). But Defendants could have made this argument in their summary judgment

briefing and failed to do so. As a result, they cannot raise it in a motion for reconsideration.1

Defendants also argue that the Levengoods failed in their duties as owners of the

common area when they failed to notify the HOA and failed to obtain a permit prior to the

fan’s installation, because had they fulfilled these duties there would have been an inspection

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 130 Filed 10/25/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

that would have revealed the absence of a junction box in the ceiling (a common area

element). Defendants made essentially the same arguments in their summary judgment

briefing. Motions for reconsideration may not ask the Court to rethink its previous analysis.

. IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 115) is denied.

2. Defendants motion for expedited consideration (Doc. 117) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00360-DGC Document 130 Filed 10/25/10 Page 3 of 3