Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Yeshivat Beth Hillel of Krasna Inc.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER   Before the court is Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (“Philadelphia”) motion to reconsider the court’s February 7, 2019 memorandum and order (Mem. & Order (“M&O”) (Dkt. 32)), which denied Philadelphia’s motion for summary judgment. (Pl. Mot. for Recons. (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 34).) For the following reasons, Philadelphia’s motion is DENIED. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹ The parties in this case assert counter-claims for declaratory judgment about an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify in an underlying dispute involving an auto collision (the “Garber Action”). Philadelphia, the insurer, initiated this action for declaratory judgment against two groups of defendants: (1) Yeshivat Beth Hillel of Krasna, Inc. (“Yeshivat”), which is the insured party and the defendant in the Garber Action; and (2) the plaintiffs in the Garber Action (the “Garbers”): M.G. (a minor), and Rami and Olivia Garber (in their capacities as M.G.’s parents/guardians, as well as in their individual capacities). (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Yeshivat has asserted cross-claims against Philadelphia for declaratory judgment, plus fees and costs. (See Yeshivat Answer (Dkt. 15).) On February 7, 2019, the court denied Philadelphia’s motion for summary judgment for two independent and sufficient reasons. (See M&O.) First, Philadelphia failed to show that it timely disclaimed coverage for the Garber Action with the “high degree of specificity” that is required under New York law. (Id. at 11 (quoting New York v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 98 F. Supp. 3d 557, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)).) Philadelphia contended that a letter it sent to a Yeshivat employee on July 18, 2013 (the “Letter”), served to properly disclaim coverage. (See Letter (Dkt. 28-9).) The court disagreed because the Letter cited an inapplicable provision of Yeshivat’s insurance policy (the “Policy”) and noted two scenarios in which the Policy would not cover the Garber Action, neither of which occurred. (M&O at 10-11.) Second, Philadelphia failed to prove that the Policy does not cover the Garber Action. (Id. at 11-12.) Throughout the case, Philadelphia maintained that the Garber Action fell within the parameters of a particular provision in the Policy (the “Auto Exclusion”). (Letter at 12; Compl.