Carrico v. Stillwater Insurance Company

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 JESSICA CARRICO and JOHN CARRICO, Case No. 2:23-cv-000349-RAJ 12

13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINITFFS’ MOTION FOR 14 RECONSIDERATION v. 15 STILLWATER INSURANCE 16 COMPANY and ALACRITY 17 SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, 18 Defendants. 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 22 (“Motion”). Dkt. # 59. Defendants filed a Response to the Motion (“Response”). Dkt. # 23 64. The Court has considered the Motion, the Response, the relevant portions of the record, 24 and the applicable law. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the Motion. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a 27 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could 1 not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local 2 R. W.D. Wash. 7(h)(1). Manifest error is very nearly synonymous with “clear error” under 3 Ninth Circuit precedent. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 4 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that “[r]econsideration is appropriate” if “the 5 district court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust”). 6 Plaintiffs Jessica and John Carrico (“Plaintiffs”) request that the Court reconsider a 7 portion of its Order, Dkt. # 58, that granted Stillwater’s motion for partial summary 8 judgment on the breach of contract claim (“Order”). In the Order, the Court evaluated 9 Plaintiffs’ homeowners’ insurance policy (the “Policy”) to determine whether an exception 10 to a wear and tear exclusion applied. The Court determined the insurance policy term 11 “plumbing system” means pipes and fixtures concerned in the distribution and use of water 12 in the home. See Id. at 6. The Court also determined that there was no basis for concluding 13 that the water damage resulted from an overflow from within a plumbing system. See Id. 14 Therefore, the Court concluded that no exception to the wear and tear exclusion applied in 15 this dispute. 16 Plaintiffs contend that new evidence establishes that the drain at issue is part of the 17 “plumbing system” within the Court’s adopted definition, and thus the Policy exception 18 should apply. Dkt. # 59. Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Court departed from controlling 19 authority by adopting a “plumbing system” definition that renders other terms meaningless. 20 Id. The Court addresses each argument below. 21 A. New Evidence 22 Plaintiffs argue that new evidence discovered after motions for partial summary 23 judgment were filed and fully briefed warrants this Court to reconsider the Order issued in 24 January 2024. To support this point, Plaintiffs cite to portions of a deposition transcript of 25 their plumber, Don Jackson, taken in December 2023. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs contend that the 26 Mr. Jackson’s testimony reveals that the outdoor drain and interior plumbing are 27 interconnected, and therefore the drain is a part of the “plumbing system” under the Court’s 1 definition in the Order. Id. at 2-3. 2 The Policy’s exception to the wear and tear exclusion remains inapplicable in this 3 case. The exception provides coverage for property loss “resulting from an accidental 4 discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a [plumbing system].” Dkt. # 17-1 at 5 19; Dkt. # 21-1 at 32-33 (emphasis added). Defendant’s Response provides a more 6 complete picture of Mr. Jackson’s testimony. See Dkt. # 64 at 2-5. The testimony 7 establishes that the water overflowed because drain at issue broke from wear and tear. Id. 8 This prevented the water from entering the plumbing system and caused it to flow outside 9 of the house and into the basement. Id. at 5-6. 10 Plaintiffs also fail to establish that this evidence could not have been discovered 11 earlier with reasonable diligence. At minimum, Plaintiffs could have notified the Court in 12 December 2023 before the Court issued the Order. 13 B. Controlling Authority 14 Plaintiffs argue the Court overlooked controlling legal authority set forth in Allstate 15 Ins. Co. v. Peasley, 131 Wn.2d 420, 424 (1997). Plaintiffs previously raised this argument 16 in their Reply. See Dkt. # 33 at 4. The Court properly considered this argument when 17 issuing the Order. Even if the Court were to adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed definition, they 18 cannot demonstrate that the loss resulted “from an accidental discharge or overflow of 19 water . . . from within” their home’s plumbing system. See Dkt. # 17-1 at 19; Dkt. # 21-1 20 at 32-33 (emphasis added). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 3 Reconsideration. Dkt. # 59. 4 5 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2024

6 7 A

8 9 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27