San Mateo Superior Court Judge Susan Greenberg again rejected a request for costs and 10% interest on employers’ recoveries against California Insurance Company and Applied Underwriters. The judge adopted a tentative order denying a motion for reconsideration filed by a former CIC insured (for past coverage see Party To…).
Attorney Phil Walker representing Environmental Controls filed the motion for reconsideration this spring following the court’s approval of the state’s rehabilitation plan for CIC. That rehabilitation plan includes settlement provisions for the ongoing litigation between insureds and CIC. The approved plan will pay interest on recoveries at a rate of 3%. The plan also ushers CIC out of the state after the cases are settled.
Walker asked for 10% interest, which is the standard rate for a money judgment in California courts under section 685.010 of the California code of civil procedure. He also reiterated a request that he made during oral arguments to allow insureds to seek costs as well. Judge Greenberg’s final order in the case included neither of these items.
The court’s order rejecting the motion for reconsideration points out several reasons why the motion should be denied such as their failure to satisfy the requirements for being considered a party in interest that could apply to vacate or amend the order. Judge Greenberg also notes that parties have 10 days to file a motion for reconsideration but the motion before her was filed more than 30 days after the date of her final order.
“However, even assuming the motion were properly and timely before the court the motion would still be denied for failure to meet the burden of showing the existence of new or different facts, circumstances or law,” Judge Greenberg wrote. She points out that the motion raises the same arguments Walker made last year during oral argument over the then-proposed rehabilitation plan. “Thus, the Court having previously heard and considered these grounds, movant fails to meet his burden to demonstrate the existence of new or different facts, circumstanced or law for the court to reconsider. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for this reason as well.”
The California Department of Insurance’s proposed statement of decision and tentative order for adopting the rehabilitation plan did not address Walker’s request for higher interest rates or the issue of attorney fees and costs. Judge Greenberg also avoided the issue by adopting the Department’s proposed decision. Other attorneys representing CIC insureds also opposed the idea of allowing former insureds to seek costs and attorney’s fees given Applied Underwriters reputation for scorched earth litigation tactics that could lead to years more of litigation.