Lowry Development, L.L.C. v. Groves & Associates Insurance
690 F.3d 382
5th Cir.2012Background
- Lowry sought wind damage coverage; Groves procured policy from Great American.
- District court held policy covered wind damage; jury found no mutual mistake about wind coverage.
- Judgment dismissed Lowry’s professional negligence claim against Groves with prejudice.
- On appeal, Fifth Circuit reversed on wind coverage; remand followed without addressing negligence claim.
- Lowry then moved under Rule 60(b) to reinstate the Groves claim; district court granted relief and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(5) applies here. | Lowry. | Groves. | Yes, Rule 60(b)(5) covers the scenario. |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper despite not filing a protective appeal. | Lowry. | Groves. | Relief proper; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Groves faces unfair prejudice from relief. | Lowry. | Groves. | No undue prejudice; relief affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Services, Inc., 286 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(b) standards; finality vs. justice considerations)
- Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc; Rule 60(b) abuse of discretion standards)
- Romaguera v. Gegenheimer, 162 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 1998) (interpretation of Rule 60(b) scope)
- Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1993) (protective appeals and Rule 60(b) relief distinctions)
- Anthony v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 693 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1982) (appeals timeliness; use of Rule 60(b) as alternative)