Opinion ID: 1474342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: HCC's Motion for Reconsideration

Text: HCC moved for reconsideration of the Claims-Made Trigger Ruling. HCC argued that London's original motion did not require HCC to proffer particular factual evidence and that its citation to the NOC and LNO provisions was a sufficient response to refute London's original contention, based upon Insuring Agreement 1, that the insurance policies were unambiguous. [7] Thus, according to HCC, it should not have been deemed required to offer factual evidence that the policies' tail coverage provisions were actually triggered before London made receipt of notice an issue. HCC also argued that the Superior Court's findings that the insurance contracts were negotiated was contrary to the evidence. London opposed HCC's motion. HCC filed a reply brief in support of its motion for reconsideration. HCC's reply brief in the Superior Court relied on three documents not previously cited in either its answering brief to London's motion for summary judgment, or its opening brief in support of the motion for reconsideration. [8] According to HCC, if it had the burden of presenting factual evidence of notice, those documents demonstrated that London had been given notice. HCC's reply also presented factual evidence to contradict the Superior Court's finding that the substantive provisions at issue had been negotiated. London did not move for leave to submit any facts or affidavits in response to the documentary evidence presented for the first time in HCC's reply brief.