Lattimore-Wiegand v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 23 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WENDY A. LATTIMORE-WIEGAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-12194

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 23)
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an insurance fraud case. Plaintiff Wendy Lattimore-Wiegand (Plaintiff) is
suing Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant) over a
provision in her automobile insurance policy providing underinsured motorist (UIM)
coverage. The Court dismissed the case. Lattimore-Wiegand v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., No. 13-12194, 2013 WL 5592891 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2013). Now before the Court
is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23). The motion is DENIED. The reasons
follow.
II. BACKGROUND
The facts are stated in the Court’s order dismissing the case and are not repeated
here. See Lattimore-Wiegand, 2013 WL 5592891, at *1–2.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that “[a] motion for

rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or
order.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). Plaintiff’s motion is timely.
No response or oral argument is allowed on a motion for reconsideration unless the
court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2).
The Court “will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely
present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). To obtain reconsideration of a court order, “the
movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and
other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id. A palpable defect
“is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on two grounds. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court
incorrectly interpreted Plaintiff’s argument and reliance on Schwartz v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 174 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff contends that she
was not arguing that the UIM limits in her insurance policy “cannot be reduced.” Rather,
she was arguing that an at-fault driver’s policy limits could never be “reduced,” and,
therefore, UIM coverage can never apply. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s reliance on dicta
from the Schwartz case seeks a strained interpretation of the insurance policy, particularly
the UIM coverage provision. As the Court explained, when Schwartz is read in its entirety,
it is helpful to Defendant’s position. Plaintiff’s reliance on dicta from Schwartz taken out of
context is misplaced and not grounds for reconsideration.
2

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in its interpretation of the insuring
agreement. There was no error in the Court’s analysis. Reading the insuring agreement
in the way Plaintiff suggests make little sense and, as explained in the order, is not what
the parties contemplated.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Plaintiff has not pointed to a palpable defect with the Court’s order requiring
reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
s/Avern Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 31, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record
on this date, October 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3