In Smith v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, the court was asked to reconsider its recent discovery decision compelling production of reserve information. The insurer again tried to argue “that this was opinion work product which is entitled to near absolute protection from discovery while Plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits is still pending and being litigated.”
The court observed that motions for reconsideration are designed to address manifest errors of law or fact, a change in governing law, or to bring out newly discovered evidence. They are not a second bit at the apple. None of these exceptions applied. The insurer simply wanted the court to rely upon the set of cases favoring its view, rather than the legal opinions the court previously cited to support its decision in favor of production. The court reiterated that the key difference it found was in the case at issue, reserves were sought in connection with a bad faith claim, while such a claim was not at issue in the cases the insurer adduced.
Date of Decision: December 15, 2015
Smith v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 2:15-cv-528, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167619 (W.D. Pa. December 15, 2015) (McVerry, J.)