Axel Johnson and Sherrie Johnson v. The Hanover Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Axel and Sherrie Johnson’s motion for reconsideration of summary judgment entered in favor of The Hanover Insurance Company. The court held that the plaintiffs identified no intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or clear error of law or fact, and that their motion improperly sought to introduce new evidence, arguments, and theories. The underlying dispute concerned insurance coverage for alleged hail damage to a residential roof and the policy’s limitation of recovery to actual cash value.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs did not establish an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error of law or fact, and therefore their motion for reconsideration was denied.
2. A motion for reconsideration may not be used to supplement the record with new evidence, raise new arguments, or repackage matters previously decided.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error of law or fact warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
2. Whether plaintiffs could use a motion for reconsideration to introduce new affidavit evidence, raise new arguments, and advance contract-avoidance and damages theories not previously presented.
3. Whether the prior summary-judgment ruling should be vacated as manifestly unjust.

Disposition

denied