Filed: Jun. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT MARCIA S. KRIEGER, Chief District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Ms. Williams' Motion to Alter the Court's March 25, 2014 Opinion and Order ( #58 ), Defendant Owners Insurance Company's ("Owners") response ( #59 ), and Ms. Williams' reply ( #60 ). Ms. Williams asserted three claims against Owners related to the company's denial of benefits to Ms. Williams under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of an auto insurance pol
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT MARCIA S. KRIEGER, Chief District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Ms. Williams' Motion to Alter the Court's March 25, 2014 Opinion and Order ( #58 ), Defendant Owners Insurance Company's ("Owners") response ( #59 ), and Ms. Williams' reply ( #60 ). Ms. Williams asserted three claims against Owners related to the company's denial of benefits to Ms. Williams under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of an auto insurance poli..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT
MARCIA S. KRIEGER, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Ms. Williams' Motion to Alter the Court's March 25, 2014 Opinion and Order (#58), Defendant Owners Insurance Company's ("Owners") response (#59), and Ms. Williams' reply (#60).
Ms. Williams asserted three claims against Owners related to the company's denial of benefits to Ms. Williams under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of an auto insurance policy issued to her by Owners. The Court granted summary judgment to Owners, finding that Ms. Williams had failed to produce sufficient competent evidence to establish that Owners acted unreasonably in investigating her claim.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), Ms. Williams moves for reconsideration of the Court's March 25, 2014 Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment ("Order") (#54). Specifically, Ms. Williams asserts that Court erred by (i) "improperly appl[ying] the summary judgment standard," (ii) "improperly hold[ing] [Ms. Williams] to the conditions of a void contract provision that is against public policy," and (iii) "allow[ing] [Owners] to filed exhibits and evidence to their Motion for Summary Judgment untimely, but [] not gran[ting] [Ms. Williams] any extension of time to respond to those exhibits and evidence."
There are three possible situations which warrant reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence which was previously unavailable, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Where, as here, a party alleges there was clear error, a court may reconsider its prior ruling if it has misapprehended the facts or a party's position, but it is not appropriate to revisit issues that have already been addressed or for a party to advance arguments that could have been raised previously. Id.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed Ms. Williams' Motion. Considering the arguments therein, the Court finds nothing that would warrant reconsideration of the Order's findings and conclusions. The Motion does no more than reassert arguments the Court has already thoroughly addressed and rejected in its prior Order and advance arguments that could have been raised previously.1 As a result, the Court finds that Ms. Williams' Motion does not present good grounds for reconsideration.
Accordingly, Ms. Williams' Motion to Alter the Court's March 25, 2014 Opinion and Order (#58) is DENIED.
