The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit awarded attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs where defendants’ Motion to Reconsider did nothing more than make the same arguments which were made in opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment. In Tkk Usa, Inc. v. Safety Nat. Cas. Corp. 727 F.3d. 782 (7th Cir. 2013) the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on its claim for coverage under a policy of insurance issued by defendant and denied a motion for attorneys’ fees finding that the denial of coverage was not unreasonable or vexatious and that the carrier did not act unreasonably or vexatiously during the course of coverage litigation as required by an Illinois statute for a fee award.
However, the district court subsequently allowed fees in connection with a denial of defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. In affirming the district court the Court of Appeals said:
“The district judge described the Motion to Reconsider as being nothing more than “challenging my interpretation of the policy terms….On appeal, Safety National argues that it filed the motion after exercising professional judgment. We appreciate that. But the fees were not assessed here because an attorney acted unethically, they were assessed because the decision to file the motion was unreasonable. Based on the lack of new argument, law or fact, the district court reasonably viewed the motion as simply “rehashing” old arguments. We affirm the district courts award of attorneys’ fees.” (P.795)