Nickerson et al v. State Farm Insurance Company
Filing
107
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CONFIRMING PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT ORDER AND GRANTING MOTION TO REINSTATE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS OF BAD FAITH: denying defendant's 86 Motion to Correct order; granting plaintiffs' 87 Motion to reinstate their bad faith claims. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 5/17/12. (rjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PATRICIA A. NICKERSON and
RUSSELL E. NICKERSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:10CV105
(STAMP)
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CONFIRMING PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT
DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT ORDER AND
GRANTING MOTION TO REINSTATE
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OF BAD FAITH
I.
Background
The plaintiffs filed this civil action in the Circuit Court of
Marshall County, West Virginia. In their complaint, the plaintiffs
made claims for underinsured motorist coverage under their State
Farm Automobile Insurance policy, as well as for bad faith denial
of coverage under that policy following an automobile accident on
November 5, 2009 in St. Clairsville, Ohio.
The plaintiffs’
underinsured motorist claim was tried before a jury in this Court
between November 1, 2011 and November 3, 2011.
However, at some
point, the defendant came to the conclusion that because the
underlying tortfeasor held liability coverage which was below the
statutory
minimum
amount
of
coverage
in
West
Virginia,
the
plaintiffs’ claim was actually an uninsured motorist claim rather
than an underinsured motorist claim, as it had been pled in the
plaintiffs’ complaint and as the parties had characterized it until
the point of the defendant’s conclusion to the contrary. Following
a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Patricia Nickerson only,
judgment was entered in this case on November 3, 2011 in favor of
plaintiff Patricia Nickerson in the amount of $226,735.68, the
amount of the jury verdict.
Following the entry of judgment, both
the plaintiffs and the defendant filed post-trial motions.
The plaintiffs’ post-trial motion asked this Court to alter
the clerk’s judgment order to include an award of pre-judgment
interest and to reinstate the plaintiffs’ bad faith claims, because
the clerk’s judgment inadvertently dismissed the entire case rather
than
just
defendant’s
the
plaintiffs’
post-trial
underinsured
motion
asked
motorist
for
an
claim.1
amended
The
judgment
reducing the $226,735.68 to $200,000.00, representing the policy
limits of the plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist coverage when the
limits of both policies held by the plaintiffs are stacked.
The
defendant’s post-trial motion also requested that this Court alter,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), its memorandum
opinion and order regarding a motion in limine filed before trial,
because that memorandum opinion and order relied on this Court’s
understanding at the time that the plaintiffs’ claim was for
underinsured motorist coverage.
Both of these motions were fully
1
Which, as explained above, was actually an uninsured motorist
claim.
2
briefed, and this Court held a status conference and later a motion
hearing regarding each of the motions.
Following
the
status
conference,
this
Court
granted
the
plaintiffs’ motion to reinstate their bad faith claims, and by
agreement of the parties, this Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion
for pre-judgment interest and granted, as also agreed to by the
parties, the defendant’s motion to amend/correct the judgment to
policy limits.2
At the motion hearing held before this Court on
May 8, 2012, the parties discussed the defendant’s Rule 59(e)
motion, and this Court denied the motion.
This memorandum opinion
and order is in confirmation of that pronounced order denying
defendant’s motion for correction of order.
II.
Applicable Law
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
recognized three grounds for amending an earlier order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l
Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998).
2
“[Federal] Rule
This Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for pre-judgment
interest by separate order entered following the motion hearing
held in this case on May 8, 2012. This Court’s exact rulings on
these matters are fully outlined in that order. (See ECF No. 106.)
Further, the defendant’s motion to amend the judgment was granted
by order declaring the judgment satisfied in the amount of
$200,000.00. (See ECF No. 98.)
3
[of Civil Procedure] 59(e) motions may not be used . . . to raise
arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the
judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a novel legal
theory that the party had the ability to address in the first
instance.”
Id.
A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate
old matters and is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.
Id.
It is improper to use such a motion to ask the
court to “rethink what the court has already thought through -rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,
Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
III.
Discussion
In support of its Rule 59(e) motion, the defendant argued that
this Court based its opinion denying the defendant’s motion to
preclude
evidence
of
medical
bills
paid
by
medical
payments
coverage on West Virginia Code § 33-6-31(b), which statutory
section only applies to underinsured motorist coverage. Therefore,
the defendant contended, because it was later determined that the
plaintiffs’
claim
was
actually
an
uninsured
motorist
claim,
§ 33-6-31 was inapplicable, and this Court’s opinion relying on
that
statutory
suggesting
that
section
the
thus
creates
plaintiffs’
in
claim
inaccurate
in
this
record
case
was
by
an
underinsured motorist claim.
The defendant also asserted that it was not requesting a
substantive change to this Court’s ruling, nor was it requesting
4
that this Court reconsider the merits of that decision, but that it
was simply requesting that this Court either limit that decision to
this case only, or enter an order declaring that the opinion was
the result of a mutual mistake.
The plaintiffs argued in response that the defendant failed to
establish any of the grounds for amending an order pursuant to Rule
59(e), and that its motion should be denied as a result.
The
plaintiffs also argued that because the jury verdict in this matter
exceeded policy limits and thus made the motion in limine, and this
Court’s ruling on the same, moot, this motion should be denied as
demanding relief which would ultimately be advisory in nature.
Following the discussion on the motion, this Court agreed with the
plaintiffs and denied the defendant’s motion to amend pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for the following reasons.
This Court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate any
of the grounds for amending an earlier judgment or order pursuant
to Rule 59(e) as articulated by the Fourth Circuit because (1)
there was no argument presented that the law upon which this Court
based its relevant opinion has changed; (2) while the defendant
argued that perhaps “new” evidence allowed it to realize that the
plaintiffs’ claim was actually for uninsured motorist coverage,
there is no contention that this evidence did not exist or was not
attainable
at
the
time
of
trial;
and
(3)
while
this
Court
acknowledged that the relevant opinion was the result of a mutual
5
mistake and/or error of fact, there is no argument that it was the
result of a clear error of law, and because this order is moot with
regard to the outcome of this case, no manifest injustice was or
could have been shown.
See Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.
Further, this Court agreed that, because the defendant did not ask
for this Court to reconsider or change the merits of its opinion
and because the relief sought by the defendant would have no effect
on the outcome or future of this case, the matter was moot.
This
Court thus denied the defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) motion.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court hereby
confirms its previous pronounced orders. The plaintiffs’ motion to
reinstate their bad faith claims (ECF Nos. 87 and 92) is hereby
GRANTED and the defendant’s motion to correct order (ECF No. 86) is
hereby DENIED.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
3
As stated above, this Court has, by separate order, granted
the plaintiffs’ motion to award pre-judgment interest (see ECF No.
106), and granted the defendant’s motion to amend/correct judgment
(see ECF No. 98).
6
DATED:
May 17, 2012
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?