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

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SPECIALTY SURPLUS INSURANCE

COMPANY, Individually and as Assignee of

the City of Tacoma,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

and GULF UNDERWRITERS

INSURANCE, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-5246RJB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Lexington Insurance Company’s and

Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 73). The Court has

considered the motion and the remainder of the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a lawsuit brought against the City of Tacoma (“the City”) and

involving the April 26, 2003, shooting death of Crystal Brame by her husband, David Brame, who

was the Chief of Police for the City of Tacoma. Dkt. 31 at 1. The Brames’ children, Ms. Brame’s

estate, and Ms. Brame’s parents (“the underlying plaintiffs”) filed suit against the City, seeking

damages resulting from injuries Ms. Brame incurred, including her death. Dkt. 23-2, Exh. 1 at 2.

The City tendered the claim to four insurers, three of which are involved in this litigation:

Specialty Surplus Insurance Company (“Specialty”), Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company

Case 3:06-cv-05246-RJB Document 74 Filed 08/29/07 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

ORDER 

Page 2

(“Gulf”), and Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”). Dkt. 23 at 1. Lexington and Gulf

denied coverage. Dkt. 34-10, Exh. 9 at 1; Dkt. 34-11, Exh. 10 at 1. Specialty and the fourth

insurance company defended the City in the litigation. 

The City ultimately settled that litigation for $12 million, $6 million of which was funded

by Specialty and $1 million of which was funded by the City. Dkt. 33 at 1. Pursuant to the

Settlement Agreement, the City of Tacoma assigned any and all rights it had against Lexington

and Gulf to Specialty. Dkt. 34-2, Exh. 1 (Settlement Agreement) at 1. 

On May 24, 2007, Lexington moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 22). Gulf joined that

motion, offering additional argument (Dkt. 24) and evidence (Dkt. 25). Specialty filed cross

motions against Lexington and Gulf. Dkt. 35; Dkt. 53. 

On August 17, 2007, the Court ruled on the pending motions. Dkt. 68. Lexington and

Gulf seek reconsideration of the portion of the order denying in part Defendant Lexington

Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. 68 at 12, 17-21.

II. DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as

follows:

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts

or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

reasonable diligence. 

Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). The defendants contend that the Court erred by not concluding that

application of the relevant statute of limitations to the underlying plaintiffs’ claims required

summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Dkt. 73 at 2. 

The defendants did not move for summary judgment on the grounds that the statute of

limitations precluded the underlying plaintiffs’ claims. See Dkt. 22 (Lexington’s motion); Dkt. 24

(Gulf’s joinder). This argument appeared for the first time in the defendants’ replies:

Nor could the Brame plaintiffs have legally sought damages for Brame’s alleged abuse of

Ms. Brame during a Lexington policy period, for any such claims would have been barred

by the three-year Statute of Limitations for personal injury. RCW 4.16.080(2). The only

damages they could have sought at the time they filed their Claims and Complaint in 2003

would have been damages that took place in 2000 or later.

Case 3:06-cv-05246-RJB Document 74 Filed 08/29/07 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

ORDER 

Page 3

Dkt. 43 at 2-3 (Lexington).

Finally, even if Specialty had set forth specific facts of a loss or personal injury during the

Gulf policy periods (which it has not) and even if the Brames’ claim had sought damages

for such loss or personal injury (which it did not), that portion of the Brames’ claim

would have been cut off by the three year statute of limitations, see RCW 4.16.080(2),

because the initial Brame action was filed on 10/8/2003 (Plt. Ex. 5), more than three

years after the last of the Gulf policies expired on 8/12/2000.

Dkt. 46 at 5 (Gulf). In light of the factual issues in this case, the Court cannot yet determine

whether the statute of limitations was subject to tolling or what portion, if any, of the settlement

represents damages that the City of Tacoma was legally obligated to pay as a result of acts

occurring within the defendants’ policy limits. The Court’s rulings on these issues do not

constitute manifest error and do not warrant reconsideration.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants Lexington Insurance Company’s and Gulf Underwriters

Insurance Company’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 73) is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2007.

AROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05246-RJB Document 74 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3