Korsun v. Guardian Insurance Company

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║

GEORGES KORSUN and OLIVIA ║ KORSUN, ║ ║ 1:18-cv-00047 Plaintiffs, ║ ║ v. ║ ║ GUARDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ║ ║ Defendant. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Paul Neil, Esq. Daryl C . Barn es, Esq . Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Declare Scope of Covered Property Under Plaintiffs’ Insurance Policy (ECF No. 43), Plaintiffs’ response (ECF No. 45), and DefendIa. nt’s reBpAlyC (KEGCRFO NUoN. 4D6 ). The parties devote their respective briefings to rearguing the merits of Defendant’s prior motion (ECF No. 32), in which Defendant requested the same relief—that the Court make a determination that theH aapttpelri cva. bGlue ainrdsiuarnance policy covers only Plaintiffs’ home, not their guesthouse. Relying on , No. 1:18-CV-00041, 2019 WL 3892415, at *2 (D.V.I. Aug. 19, 2019), the Court denied the motion, explaining that it was premature to make a ruling on this issue because the parties had not yet completed the appraisal process: The Court is most concerned about the ripeness of the issue at this point ... The appraisers in this case apparently have not even submitted their proposals to Korsun v. Guardian Insurance Company

1:18-cv-00047 Memorandum Opinion and Order P age 2

still be vacated for procedSuerea lV deenftioc ive.n Ccieerst,a bine cUanudseer “witr iitse rwse allt- sLeltotyledds that an appraisal award may be set aside due to fraud, mistake, misfeasanAcme, bcioelnlut sGiropn.,, pInrce.j uv.d Cicoen ot’rl Ipnasr. tCiaol.ity.”) , No. CV 2018-91, 2019 WL 2402973, at *4 (D.V.I. Apr. 26, 2019) (quoting , 1994 WL 326602, at *2 (D.V.I. Mar. 2, 1994). It seems prudent to let the processH paltatye rout before the Court takes action.

(Order, ECF No. 38 at 3, quoting , 2019 WL 3892415, at *2). Because the Court is bound by its own ruling, the Court will read Defendant’s immediate motion as a motion to recoInIs. ider.S TANDARD FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION A court may grant a motion for reconsideration if (1) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred, (2) new evidence has become available, orL (a3z)a rreidcoisn vs.i Wdeerhamtioern is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifestN ionrjuths tiRciev. e r Ins. Co. v. CIGNA, 5R9ei1n sFu.r3adn c6e6 C6o,. 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing , 52 F.3d 1194, 1218I (I3I.d CirD. 1IS9C9U5S))S.ION The only change of sSigenei ficance since the Court’s prior ruling is that the umpire is now ready to make his award. ( ECF No. 43-1 at 1, ECF No. 45-1 at 1). To that end, the umpire outlined—in a comprehensive email dated May 21, 2020—that he is awaiting further guidance from the parties and this Court as to how best to handle some specific calculations before he issues his final award. However, he still has not issued the award, and, thus, the parties have not offered a sufficient basis for the Court to vacate its prior Order. The parties Korsun v. Guardian Insurance Company

1:18-cv-00047 Memorandum Opinion and Order P age 3

enforcement of the Couclrots’se prior Order would present a manifest injustice. Moreover, the fact that the umpire is to his final decision is not itself new evidence that would justify a change to the prior Order. The umpire must, at a minimum, make his determination on coverage and issue an award before this matter would potentially be ripe for the Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is IdVe.n ied CwOitNhCoLuUt SpIrOejNu dice. ORDERED: W HEREFORE, it is now hereby 1. Defendant’s Renewed Motion to DeclareD ESNcoIEpeD Wof ITCHovOeUreTd P RPrEoJpUeDrItCy EU nder Plaintiffs’ Insurance Policy (ECF No. 43) is . 2. The umpire 1) must, if necessary, make his own determination on what is covered under the insurance policy and 2) issue a final appraisal award. ENTER:

Dated: May 22, 2020 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE