Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00795/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00795-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

Katherine Coronel,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GEICO Ins. Agency Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-795-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 120) and

Defendant’s Response (Doc. 126), regarding this Court’s Order of June 27, 2013 (Doc. 116).

In Plaintiff’s motion, she moves the Court to reconsider its decision that New York law

governs her Uninsured Motorist (UM) claim. She agrees, however, with the Court’s position

that Arizona law applies to her bad faith claim. In contrast, in Defendant’s Response, GECIO

agrees with the Court’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s UM claim, but asks the Court to

reconsider as to the bad faith claim and determine that this claim is governed by New York

law as well.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidnece, (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of

Case 2:12-cv-00795-SMM Document 129 Filed 08/01/13 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

asking a court “ ‘to rethink what the court had already thought through--rightly or wrongly.’

” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. At 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. V. Mel

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99. F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. VA 1983)). The Court ordinarily will

deny “a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a

showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention

earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1).

Plaintiff continues to try and argue that Arizona law should apply simply because

Arizona was where the accident took place. This argument, which would generally be true,

fails in this instance due to the presence of the valid choice-of-law provision. As for

Defendant’s argument that New York law should also govern Plaintiff’s bad faith claim,

GEICO states that Arizona does not have a materially greater interest than New York in this

dispute. This is not true. Arizona’s interest to protect the Plaintiff, its resident, from the

tortious conduct of an out of state insurance company far outweighs the interests of New

York in this case. 

Here, the Parties simply fail to meet the standard required to grant a motion for

reconsideration. The Court finds no manifest error in its previous Order. Further, neither

party has presented new facts or authority. Therefore, Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g), the

Court will deny the Parties’ Motions for Reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc.

120.) New York law will apply to Plaintiff’s UM Claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s motion for the Court to

reconsider its position on Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. (Doc. 126.) Arizona law will govern

Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. 

DATED this 31st day of July, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00795-SMM Document 129 Filed 08/01/13 Page 2 of 2