Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00915/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00915-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Green Tree Servicing LLC
Defendant
Maria Veloz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

Maria Veloz, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Green Tree Servicing LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00915-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Maria Veloz has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order 

dated May 29, 2014 (Doc. 61) granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment (Doc. 49). Doc. 63. Defendant has responded. Doc. 65. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. 

 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-00915-JJT Document 66 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

A. Mold Coverage. 

 The Court’s May 29, 2014 order stated that Plaintiff had identified no portion of 

the Mercury policy that provided coverage for mold remediation. Doc. 61 at 4. Plaintiff 

has identified a portion of her controverting statement of facts which she contends the 

Court failed to consider. Specifically, she notes that her controverting statement of facts 

cites to a portion of the Mercury policy that provides coverage for mold remediation and 

living expenses.1

 See Doc. 54, ¶ 28. Plaintiff is correct. The Court erred in not 

considering this citation. 

 The cited portion of the Mercury policy provides that Mercury will pay for 

remediation of “fungi, other microbes or rot from the covered property” where a “loss 

caused by a Peril Insured Against results in fungi, other microbes or rot[.]” Doc. 50-4 at 

17. The policy further provides that Mercury will pay for “[a]ny reasonable and 

necessary increase in living expense you can incur [s]o that your household can maintain 

its normal standard of living[.]” Id. The policy states that the “most [Mercury] will pay 

under this additional coverage is $5,000.” Id. 

 In its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, Defendant argued that 

Plaintiff cannot rely on the Mercury policy because it was not authenticated and an 

unauthenticated document cannot create an issue of material fact. This argument is 

without merit because the Mercury policy relied on by Plaintiff was submitted by 

Defendant as an exhibit to its motion for summary judgment, clearly suggesting that 

Defendant did not have difficulty with its authentication. See Doc. 50-4. 

 In its response to the motion for reconsideration, Defendant argues that Plaintiff 

cannot rely on the mold policy language because the Mercury policy expired in January 

2013. Doc. 65 at 2. But the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim is that the policy expired 

because Defendant failed to pay the premium as promised. Although it is possible that 

any continuing policy would have had different terms, that mere possibility is not enough 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s controverting statement of facts cites this provision as appearing on page 12 of Defendant’s exhibit D. Doc. 54, ¶ 28. Although the cited page is page 12 of the Mercury policy, it is actually page 17 of Defendant’s exhibit D. See Doc. 50-4 at 17. 

Case 2:13-cv-00915-JJT Document 66 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

to grant summary judgment. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he 

evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be 

drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The 

facts to be believed, therefore, are (1) that Plaintiff’s policy provided mold coverage, and 

(2) that the policy was cancelled because Defendant failed to pay the premium. 

Justifiable inferences that may be drawn from these facts include that the policy would 

have remained in place had Defendant paid the premium and would have continued to 

provide mold coverage. 

 The Court’s initial order stated that “Plaintiff must show not only that she incurred 

the expenses, but also that the Mercury policy would have covered them.” Doc. 61 at 4. 

Plaintiff submitted with her amended complaint a copy of an estimate from Stratton 

Restoration totaling $47,832.37. See Doc. 33-7. Although Plaintiff does not cite to the 

Stratton estimate in either her statement of facts supporting her motion for summary 

judgment or her controverting statement of facts opposing Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, the Stratton estimate does include some expenses related to mold 

testing (id. at 3) and hazardous material remediation (id. at 10). Aside from her affidavit, 

Plaintiff did not submit any evidence of her alleged additional living expenses. Plaintiff’s 

cited evidence is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the Mercury policy 

provided coverage for mold remediation and whether Plaintiff incurred expenses related 

to mold remediation. The Court therefore will deny Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment as to the issue of mold remediation. Because Plaintiff has not presented 

evidence demonstrating that she incurred additional living or storage expenses, the Court 

will grant summary judgment for the Defendant as to these issues. 

B. Evidence of Damages. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration also asks the Court to amend its original 

order to allow “Plaintiff to present evidence on [ ] damages as well.” Doc. 63 at 2. To 

the extent Plaintiff is seeking permission to submit additional evidence of damages, that 

request is denied. Plaintiff was required to submit evidence in response to Defendant’s 

Case 2:13-cv-00915-JJT Document 66 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

motion for summary judgment. The Court will not allow Plaintiff to submit additional 

evidence without a showing that she could not previously have known of the evidence 

through the exercise of reasonable diligence. See Motorola, Inc., 215 F.R.D. at 586. 

Plaintiff has made no such showing. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 63) is granted 

in part and denied in part as set forth above. 

 Dated this 13th day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00915-JJT Document 66 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 4