Bryant, et al. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY GLORIA A. BRYANT, personal representative of the Estate of FELICIA C. ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY and MICAH T. GALLAGHER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 05C-05-042 MMJ Defendants. Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008 On Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company s Motion for Reargument DENIED ORDER Joseph J. Rhoades, Esquire, A. Dales Bowers, Esquire, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael I. Silverman, Esquire, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE, Attorneys for Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company JOHNSTON, J. 1. On July 28, 2008, following oral argument, the Court issued an Opinion denying Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company s Motion for Summary Judgment and deciding various pre-trial motions. The Court found that the vehicle was uninsured, plaintiff s injuries arose out of the use of the uninsured vehicle, plaintiff was occupying the uninsured vehicle at the time of injury, and the carjacker s criminal conduct did not break the causal link between the use of the vehicle and injury. 2. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reargument Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e). Defendant argues that the Court erred in finding that the vehicle was not uninsured at the time of the accident, pursuant to the terms and conditions of defendant s policy. 3. The purpose of reargument is to permit reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. 1 Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. A motion 1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del.1969). 1 for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 2 4. Defendant s contentions on reargument were fully considered and rejected by the Court in its Opinion denying summary judgment. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. THEREFORE, Defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Company s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ M M Johnston ary . The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 2 Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371 (Del. Super.); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032, Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
