United States District Court, S.D. New York
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
CATALENT, INC., Defendant.
APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Jeffrey S. Weinstein, Emilie
Bakal-Caplan, Sara F. Lilling Mound Cotton Wollan &
the Defedent Elizabeth A. Edmondson Jenner & Block LLP
John H. Mathias, Jr. David M. Kroeger Jenner & Block LLP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COTE, District Judge.
March 10, 2017, Catalent, Inc. (“Catalent”) filed
a motion for reconsideration of the February 24 Opinion
granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by
U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (“USSIC”).
U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Catalent, Inc., No.
16cv4414 (DLC), 2017 WL 728704 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2017)
(“2017 Opinion”). For the reasons discussed
below, Catalent's motion for reconsideration is denied.
standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
“strict.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga
Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted) (discussing a motion under Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ.
P.). “[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless
the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data
that the court overlooked.” Id. (citation
omitted). “A motion for reconsideration should be
granted only when the defendant identifies an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence,
or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov,
Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.
2013) (citation omitted). It is “not a vehicle for
relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new
theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise
taking a second bite at the apple.” Analytical
Surveys, 684 F.3d at 52 (citation omitted).
with the 2017 Opinion is presumed. Only those facts necessary
to understand the arguments presented in the motion for
reconsideration are repeated here. USSIC issued a
“Special Coverages Policy” to Catalent effective
June 9, 2014 to June 30, 2017 (the “Policy”).
Between January and October of 2015, Catalent detected
several instances of “out-of-place” capsules
during the execution of its quality control procedures in its
manufacturing facility in Beinheim, France. Because of the
contaminations, the National Agency for the Safety of
Medicines and Health Products, the primary French
pharmaceutical regulatory agency, suspended operations at
Catalent's Beinheim facility. Catalent sustained losses
in excess of $10, 000, 000 related to the suspension. Crucial
to this motion, “Catalent never received a written or
oral demand for money related to the contamination and admits
that it has not identified a ‘sum of monies or the
monetary value of any other consideration surrendered by or
on behalf of the INSURED as an extortion payment' arising
from these events.” Catalent, 2017 WL 728704,
at *2 (quoting Policy language). The Policy provides coverage
as relevant here for “Hazard 4. Extortion Property
Damage.” A Hazard 4 LOSS is defined as “the
sum of monies or the monetary value of any other
consideration surrendered by or on behalf of the
Insured as an extortion payment arising from one
event or connected series of events.” (Emphasis
denied coverage for the business losses related to the
contaminations and filed this declaratory judgment action on
June 13, 2016. Catalent moved for judgment on the pleadings
on October 7, and USSIC cross-moved on October
The 2017 Opinion found that “[t]he parties agree that
no ‘Extortion Property Damage' or ‘LOSS'
as defined in Hazard 4 of the Policy has occurred” and
that “the plain language of the Policy is unambiguous
that coverage for . . . additional expenses is predicated on
the existence of an event that qualifies as a Hazard 4
event.” Catalent, 2017 WL 728704, at *4.
principal argument on reconsideration relies on a deposition
taken the day before the 2017 Opinion was
issued.USSIC's Rule 30(b)(6) witness testified
that in order for there to be coverage under the Policy there
must be a “loss or a demand for a loss.” In other
words, to qualify for coverage under the Policy, the
policyholder need not pay an extortion amount “as long
as there is the demand for an extortion payment.”
it were proper to consider this testimony on a motion for
reconsideration, and it is not, this testimony does not
suggest that the motion for reconsideration should be
granted. The deposition testimony indicates that, at the very
least, a demand for payment is necessary for
coverage under Hazard 4 of the Policy, even if no payment is
made. Catalent previously admitted that it never made an
extortion payment and does not now suggest that it received a
demand for an extortion payment.
March 10, 2017 motion for reconsideration is denied.