The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants including Foster Wheeler and Crane Co. for injuries allegedly sustained while Mr. Osterhaut served in the U.S. Navy onboard the USS Roan.
Summary judgment was denied as to both Foster Wheeler and Crane. Crane filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The court noted that reconsideration is appropriate only when 1) and intervening change in controlling law took place 2) new evidence is available and 3) the need to correct clear error of law is present.
Additionally before the court was Crane’s motion to amend noting that maritime law governed this claim. Crane expressed concern that the court continued to discuss New York law thereafter even though maritime law applied. The court was unpersuaded by Crane’s argument and found it an attempt to re-litigate the issue at hand. As for the motion for reconsideration, Crane argued that the court had not considered its recent decision in Dandridge which “distinguished the Quirin holding.” The court pointed out that it is not bound by the decisions from the District Court of South Carolina or the Northern District of Alabama. Accordingly, Crane’s contentions were not a basis for reconsideration.
More importantly though, the court noted that Crane had not brought forth any new evidence. On the contrary, the plaintiff presented evidence that Crane knew its valves came with asbestos components that would deteriorate and potentially expose a sailor like Mr. Osterhaut.
Accordingly, the court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.