King et al v. Homeward Residential Inc et al

Filing 148

ORDER denying 120 Motion for Reconsideration because the defendants have not demonstrated any manifest error of law or fact or presented newly discovered evidence. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/24/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
DOROTHY KING,
for herself and all Arkansas residents
similarly situated
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO: 3:14-CV-00183 BSM

HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC. and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

The motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 120] submitted by defendants Homeward
Residential Inc. (“Homeward”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”) is denied
because they have not demonstrated any manifest error of law or fact or presented newly
discovered evidence. See Frost v. Young, No. 4:08CV01824 BSM, 2012 WL 299538, at *2
(E.D. Ark. Feb. 1, 2012) (citing Arnold v. ADT Sec. Serv.’s, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir.
2010)).
For the filed rate doctrine to bar plaintiff Dorothy King’s1 excessive rate claim,
Homeward and Ocwen must show that the disputed force place insurance rates were filed and
approved. H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 954 F.2d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal
punctuation omitted), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 957 (1992). The filing originally submitted to
demonstrate this does not clearly demonstrate much of anything except that “[r]ates are

1

This case was filed by Savoil and Dorothy King on behalf of a potential class. Dorothy
became the sole named plaintiff when Savoil passed away. See Notice by All Plaintiffs of Death
of Plaintiff Savoil King, Doc. No. 147.

exempt from filing requirements.” Request for Judicial Notice, Doc. No. 24-1. Interestingly,
Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-67-206(a) states, “In a competitive market, property
and casualty insurance for commercial risks, excluding worker’s compensation, employers’
liability, and professional liability insurance, including, but not limited to, medical
malpractice insurance, are exempted from the rate filing and review provisions set forth in
this chapter.” Thus, Homeward and Ocwen have not shown, and perhaps cannot show, that
the Arkansas Insurance Department approved the rates at issue charged for force place
insurance. Accordingly, reconsideration of the order issued on November 18, 2014, is denied
because no error of law has manifest.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of May 2017.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE