Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitehouse Condominium Group, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

September 9, 2013

WHITEHOUSE CONDOMINIUM GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

Page 1025

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1026

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1027

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1028

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1029

For Whitehouse Condominium Group, LLC, Plaintiff: Edward B. Davison, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gault Davison, Grand Blanc, MI.

For Cincinnati Insurance Company, The, Defendant: Alan G. Gregory, Gregory and Meyer, Troy, MI.

OPINION

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Page 1030

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#15]

On July 29, 2013, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Page 1031

Judgment and Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 13. The Court's Order found that the actual cash value of the subject property includes a deduction for functional obsolescence rather than for functional and economic obsolescence. In the present motion, Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its decision concluding that the term obsolescence does not include economic obsolescence.

Motions for Reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which provides:

[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof.

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Here, Defendant merely re-raises the same arguments already considered and rejected by this Court. Defendant identifies no palpable defect by which this Court has been misled, the correction of which will result in a different disposition of this Court's July 29, 2013 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [#15] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.