N. Am. Co. for Life & Health Ins. v. Crowell

• Decision Date: 29 March 2022
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-2027
• Parties: North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Plaintiff, v. Rebecca McGee Crowell, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Plaintiff,
v.
Rebecca McGee Crowell, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:20-cv-2027

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff North American Company for Life and Health Insurance filed a Complaint against Defendant Rebecca McGee Crowell^[1] seeking recission of a life insurance policy under Ohio Revised Code § 3911.06 (Count 1), and for declaratory judgment that the life insurance policy was void ab initio (Count 2). (Doc. No. 1).

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff issued a $100, 000 life insurance policy to Kevin Crowell, Defendant's husband. (Doc. No. 1 at 2). In applying for a policy, Mr. Crowell was required to answer a series of questions and certify that his answers were truthful. (Doc. No. 1 at 3; Doc. No. 1-1 at 18). Based on these representations, Plaintiff issued the Policy. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Mr. Crowell died on August 28, 2019, and Defendant submitted a claim on the policy on or about August 29, 2019. (Id. at 4). Because the claim was brought within two years of the policy's effective

1

date, Plaintiff initiated a contestability investigation. (Id. at 4-5). In the course of that investigation, Plaintiff concluded Mr. Crowell had made material misrepresentations in his application. Plaintiff then brought the instant suit.

On July 26, 2021, I denied Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of standing and lack of an actual controversy to satisfy an exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. (Doc. No. 17). On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), requesting relief under a theory of clear error of law or manifest injustice. (Doc. Nos. 19 & 20). Defendant did not respond to the motion nor has she participated in any manner in this litigation, absent executing a waiver of service on October 27, 2020. (See Doc. Nos. 8 & 17).

II. Standard

The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is to allow the court to reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Generally, three major situations justify a district court altering or amending its judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to consider newly discovered evidence; or (3) to prevent a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). But Rule 59(e) is not designed to give an unhappy litigant an opportunity to relitigate matters already decided; nor is it a substitute for appeal. Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ'g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007). Rather, a motion to alter or amend is proper only if it calls to the court's attention “an argument or controlling authority that was overlooked or disregarded in the original ruling, presents manifest evidence or argument that could not previously have been submitted, or successfully points out a manifest error of fact or law.”

2

Turner v. City of Toledo, 671 F.Supp.2d 967, 969 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

III. Analysis

Plaintiff first argues it...