Great Plains Ventures, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
April 29, 2016, Decided; April 29, 2016, Filed
Case No. 14-1136-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.'s ("Liberty") Motion for Reconsideration and Revision of the Memorandum and Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 111). On February 11, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 110) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Great Plains Ventures, Inc.'s ("GPV") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 104). The Court granted summary judgment on the issue of coverage, and denied summary judgment on the issue of attorneys' fees. Defendant moves for reconsideration on the issue of coverage. For the reasons stated in detail below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
I. Legal Standards
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b) governs motions to reconsider [*2] non-dispositive orders, while Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 govern motions to reconsider dispositive orders. Here, the Court's partial grant of summary judgment was a dispositive order, as it was a decision on the merits that resolved some of Plaintiff's claims in the case. Therefore, the court considers Defendant's motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). ] Under Rule 59(e), grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. "Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Such a motion does not permit a losing party to rehash arguments previously addressed or to present new legal theories or facts that could have been raised earlier. A party's failure to present its strongest case in the first instance does not entitle it to a second chance in the form of a motion to reconsider. Whether to grant a motion to reconsider is left to the Court's discretion.
II. DiscussionRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57481 *
GREAT PLAINS VENTURES, INC., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Prior History: Great Plains Ventures, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 161 F. Supp. 3d 970, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17751 (D. Kan., Feb. 11, 2016)
coverage, summary judgment, provide coverage, unambiguously, cosmetic, hail, physical loss, argues, specific provision, general provision, reconsideration motion, ambiguity, asserts, dents, roof, burden of proof, ejusdem generis, special meaning, covered loss, clear error, definitions, bold
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Intent, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Entire Contract, Ambiguous Terms, Unambiguous Terms, Ordinary & Usual Meanings, Ambiguities & Contra Proferentem, Construction Against Insurers, Policy Interpretation, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Claims Made Policies, Coverage, Exclusions