Selective Ins. Co. of S. Carolina v. City of Paris

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants’ motion to reconsider Dist. Ct.’s grant of plaintiffs-insurance companies’ motions for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiffs did not owe duty to defend defendants in underlying malicious prosecution action, where Dist. Ct. had granted said motion for summary judgment approximately 33 months prior to filing of motion to reconsider, and where basis for motion to reconsider was defendants’ claim that subsequent change in case law called into question correctness of Dist. Ct.’s January 2010 order that found that claim for malicious prosecution occurs for insurance purposes on date when prosecution was instituted. Dist. Ct. could properly find that its January, 2010 order was final judgment because there were no other separate claims pending at time Dist. Ct. had entered its judgment, and because said order had been entered pursuant to Rule 58. Fact that case law might have changed subsequent to time when January 2010 order became final was insufficient to seek reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that one plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of defense costs in underlying declaratory judgment action was separate and “pending” matter that allowed them ability to proceed on their motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b).