CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. B&R Management, Inc., 1:15-cv-03364

CX Reinsurance Company (CX Re) sued B&R Management; discovery dispute with defendant Jessica-Carl, Inc. about production requests Nos. 7 and 8.
Requests 7–8 sought documents showing CX Re paid or refused payments under lead-paint liability policies (1997–1999) when CX Re had evidence of lead-paint violation notices, including for insureds other than B&R.
The Magistrate Judge previously denied (in part) Defendant’s motion to compel, finding the requested documents not relevant to rescission, laches, limitations, or waiver as to B&R.
Defendant moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), arguing clear error and that the documents bear on waiver and the statute of limitations.
The Court reviewed the applicable standard for reconsideration of interlocutory orders and found none of the narrow bases for reconsideration (change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice) present.
The Court reaffirmed that evidence pertaining to insureds other than B&R is not relevant to whether CX Re promptly sought rescission or when it discovered facts sufficient to trigger limitations as to B&R; CX Re was ordered to produce documents specific to underwriting review of B&R.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevant scope of Requests 7–8	CX Re: relevance limited to documents about B&R’s policy and investigation timing	Jessica-Carl: requests for other insureds show CX Re’s knowledge, waiver, and when limitations accrued	Requests covering other insureds are not relevant; only B&R-specific underwriting materials must be produced
Whether reconsideration appropriate under Rule 54(b)	CX Re: interlocutory orders may be revisited but only on narrow grounds	Jessica-Carl: court erred and should reconsider because documents affect waiver/laches/limitations	Motion for reconsideration denied; no intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice
Relevance of payments/refusals on unrelated policies	CX Re: payments/refusals for other insureds do not bear on CX Re’s promptness toward B&R	Jessica-Carl: such patterns show CX Re’s knowledge/waiver and timing for accrual of claims	Documents about other insureds’ payments/refusals are irrelevant to B&R-specific rescission and limitations inquiries
Materiality argument (related but not contested on reconsideration)	CX Re: maintained that Requests 7–8 were not material to issuance of B&R’s policy	Jessica-Carl: did not seek reconsideration of the materiality ruling	The Court’s prior materiality ruling stands (defendant did not contest it on reconsideration)

Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003) (standard for reconsideration of interlocutory orders is less strict but limited to narrow grounds)
Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 94 Md. App. 505 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993) (timing of insurer’s rescission relates to when insurer obtained sufficient proof of misrepresentation)
William Rounds v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 109 A.3d 639 (Md. 2015) (discussing accrual and notice principles for limitations and related equitable doctrines)