District Courts Finds that Motion to Reconsider Not Proper Avenue To Argue a Disagreement with Court

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. V. GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICAARIO AS LIQUIDATOR OF RELIANCE INS. CO. V. UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF LLOYD’S OF LONDON

(E.D. P.A. JUNE 9, 2010)

 

Global and Pacific had entered into a facultative reinsurance contract that provided for among other things a one million dollar limit in the “reinsurance accepted” portion of the contract.  Pacific began submitting their expenses to Global pursuant to this policy because of an asbestos suit they were involved in.  In September of 2009, Pacific reached the one million dollar maximum and Global stopped paying. 

 

Defendant Global moved for Summary Judgment regarding its Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment of policy limits and denying Pacific’s motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the same.  The Court granted Global’s motion and declared that Global’s maximum exposure pursuant to the relevant reinsurance contract was one million dollars.  Pacific moved for, among other things, reconsideration of these motions. 

 

The Court denied Pacific’s Motion in its entirety.  The Court noted that not only did Pacific fail by improperly making the same arguments they made in their underlying motion, they even contradicted some of their previous arguments as well.  The Court noted that when bringing a motion to reconsider, a litigant needs to evaluate whether what seems “to be a clear error of law is not simply a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.”  

 

For a copy of the decision click here

 

Patrick Omilian and Sharon Angelino

 

http://www.goldbergsegalla.com/attorneys/Omilian.html

http://www.goldbergsegalla.com/attorneys/Angelino.html

 

case provided courtesy of Lexis

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.