The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Cindy Lee's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order Filed on November 28, 2012 ("Plaintiff's Motion"), filed on December 12, 2012; and (2) Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company's ("GEICO") Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Filed November 28, 2012 ("GEICO's Motion"), filed on January 3, 2013. GEICO filed its memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on December 31, 2012, and Plaintiff filed her reply on July 12, 2012. Plaintiff filed her memorandum in opposition to GEICO's Motion on January 17, 2013, and GEICO filed its reply on January 28, 2013. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i ("Local Rules"). After careful consideration of the motions, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff's Motion is HEREBY DENIED, and GEICO's Motion is HEREBY GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
The relevant factual and procedural background in this case is set forth in this Court's November 28, 2012 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff Cindy Lee's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment ("11/28/12 Order"). 2012 WL 5987574. The Court therefore will not repeat that background here.
In the 11/28/12 Order, this Court concluded, inter alia, that neither the addition of vehicles nor the addition of a newly licensed driver to Plaintiff's automobile insurance policy constituted a material change requiring GEICO to make a new offer of optional uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") coverage. 2012 WL 5987574 at *22-23. The Court therefore granted GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on July 11, 2012 [dkt. no. 28,] as to all portions of the First Amended Complaint that were based on alleged material changes to the policy. Id. at *23.
The Court found that a question of fact existed as to whether GEICO intelligibly advised Plaintiff of the nature of UM/UIM coverage, and whether or not GEICO apprised Plaintiff that such coverage was available for a relatively modest increase in premium. Id. at *24.*fn1 The Court therefore denied GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment, without prejudice, as to all portions of the First Amended Complaint based on alleged deficiencies in the 2001 offer of UM/UIM coverage. Id.*fn2
Plaintiff argues that this Court should reconsider its 11/28/12 Order because (1) Plaintiff and the Court made a mistake of fact by making a distinction between a "named insured" and an "additional driver" for purposes of the GEICO policy; and (2) the Court "unintentionally" failed to follow a District of Utah decision and reached a different outcome on similar facts.
As to the first reason, Plaintiff argues that the addition of Karen as an additional driver on the policy increased GEICO's risk because it added "liability coverage for vehicles driven by Karen that were not owned by the Lees." [Mem. in Supp. of Plaintiff's Motion at 9-10.] As to the second reason, Plaintiff argues that the Court mistakenly reached an outcome different from the outcome reached by the Utah District Court in American National Property and Casualty Company v. Checketts, No. 2:11-cv-250 BSJ, 2012 WL 1835866 (May 21, 2012 D. Utah).
Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to reconsider the 11/28/12 Order, deny summary judgment on the issue of whether there was a material change to the policy, and grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the insufficiency of the 2001 UM/UIM offer of coverage.
In GEICO's Motion, GEICO seeks reconsideration of the portions of the 11/28/12 Order denying summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims based on the validity of the 2001 offer of UM/UIM coverage. GEICO argues that newly available information, namely, Plaintiff's statements in Plaintiff's Motion, establishes that there is no issue of material fact regarding the sufficiency of GEICO's initial offer of UM/UIM coverage.
GEICO notes that, in Plaintiff's Motion, Plaintiff states that her claim of insufficiency of the 2001 UM/UIM offer was based upon the language of the UM/UIM Offer Form itself, rather than the GEICO agent's alleged oral statement that Plaintiff's premiums would be lower if she declined UM/UIM coverage. [Mem. in Supp. of GEICO's Motion at 4 (citing Mem. in Supp. of Plaintiff's Motion at 11).] GEICO argues that the 2001 UM/UIM Offer Form provided a legally sufficient offer of UM/UIM coverage as a matter of law and, as such, the Court should grant partial reconsideration of the 11/28/12 Order and hold that GEICO made Plaintiff a legally sufficient offer of coverage. Because all of Plaintiff's ...