KANIKA GHAI DECLARATION OF TRUST, VIVEK GHAI, AND KANIKA GHAI
v.
AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a National Flood Insurance Program case, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling that dismissed their flood insurance claim based on failure to file within the one-year statute of limitations.
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration because plaintiffs failed to present extraordinary circumstances. Their argument regarding an omitted "critical" sentence from the defendant's denial letter was already rejected by the Court and merely rehashed a previously litigated issue.
[1] Reconsideration of a prior court order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly.
[2] A motion for reconsideration must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting the request.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly.”
Establishes the high bar for obtaining reconsideration of a court order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Kanika Ghai Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai filed a flood insurance claim against American Bankers Insurance Company of F…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse National Flood Insurance Program cases and more on FLexlaw
Declaration of Trust, Vivek Ghai, and Kanika Ghai failed to file this case within the one-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 35). Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 39).
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant's pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children's Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated." PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Plaintiffs' motion simply rehashes an argument they previously raised regarding an omitted “critical” sentence from Defendant's denial letter. The Court already rejected this argument. (Doc. 35 at 9–10). They cannot use a motion for reconsideration merely to relitigate an issue the Court already decided. Because they present no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 39) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 17, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship Ex Rel. Third Income Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514 (M.D. Fla. 1995)