Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Chu v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 28, 2017

JACQUELYN K. CHU, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, (Doc. 26)

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a case concerning a policy of insurance for occupational disability income. On February 7, 2017, after holding a hearing, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff insured. (Doc. 24). The Court concluded:

There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that carpal tunnel syndrome surgery will enable plaintiff to return to the practice of dentistry and particularly to perform the important duties associated with that profession.

(Doc. 24; see also Doc. 29).

         On February 21, 2017, defendant insurer filed a “Motion for Reconsideration.” (Doc. 26). On March 7, 2017, the Court entered an “Order Directing Response” from the plaintiff. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff has responded and defendant has replied.

         Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) which provides in relevant part:

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, 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. 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.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).

         Defendant has not shown any ground for reconsideration. The motion is DENIED.

         First, defendant takes issue with the Court's interpretation of the language of the “appropriate care” clause in the policy, which reads:

“Total Disability” means that because of Injury or Sickness:
a. You are unable to perform the important duties of Your Occupation; and b. You are receiving Physician's Care.
“Physician's Care” means the regular and personal care of a Physician which, under prevailing medical standards is appropriate for the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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